hound_preinstall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a safety check that analyzes multiple aspects and returns a go/no-go verdict, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on authorization requirements or how the verdict is calculated.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second details the checks and output. No extraneous information.

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 explains the output (go/no-go verdict) but does not specify the format or structure of the verdict. Given the absence of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters; it only gives context for the overall tool purpose.

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 performs a safety check for installing a package, covering vulnerabilities, typosquatting, abandonment, and license concerns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hound_vulns or hound_typosquat by being a comprehensive pre-install check that returns a single verdict.

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 explicitly says 'before installing a package', which clearly indicates when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer.

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