hound_license_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resolves licenses and flags violations based on policy, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the output format. The behavior is adequately described for a read-only scan.

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 two sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action and elaborating the policy behavior. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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?

The description lacks information about the return value, which is critical since no output schema exists. Without knowing what the tool returns (e.g., violations list, pass/fail), an agent cannot effectively use the results. This is a significant gap for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds context by explaining the policy enum values but does not provide new semantic information beyond the schema. It restates the workflow without adding depth.

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 tool 'scan[s] a lockfile for license compliance' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hound_vulns (security vulnerabilities) by focusing solely on licenses.

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 explains the purpose and policy options but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hound_audit). Usage context is implied by the tool's function, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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