hound_license_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: scanning lockfiles, resolving licenses, and flagging violations based on policy. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., speed, rate limits), error handling, or output format details. It adequately describes the core operation but lacks deeper behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, process, and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and maintains clarity throughout.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance limits, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, this is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'lockfile' context and policy options, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema. With 100% coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description's reinforcement of parameter roles justifies a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('scan a lockfile for license compliance'), the resource ('lockfile'), and the outcome ('resolves licenses for every dependency and flags packages that violate the chosen policy'). It distinguishes this from siblings like hound_vulns (security) or hound_audit (general audit) by focusing exclusively on license compliance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (license compliance checking) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hound_advisories or hound_audit. It mentions three policy options but doesn't guide which to choose based on scenarios. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.