hound_popular

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the core function (scanning for vulnerabilities) without mentioning safety (e.g., read-only), performance implications, or limitations. The lack of detail on what the tool does beyond the basic purpose makes it minimally transparent.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words, and every sentence adds value. The structure is efficient and clear.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent: it scans packages for vulnerabilities and can use a curated list. While return format isn't detailed, the purpose is clear enough for correct invocation.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds extra context for the 'packages' parameter by explaining the default behavior (using curated list if omitted). This goes beyond the schema's description, warranting a higher score.

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 'scans a list of popular (or user-specified) packages for known vulnerabilities.' It specifies the action (scan), resource (list of packages), and goal (find vulnerabilities), distinguishing it from siblings like hound_vulns by emphasizing focus on popular packages.

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 for quickly surfacing vulnerabilities in widely-used packages, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like hound_vulns or hound_audit. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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