hound_score

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 computes a score and returns a letter grade with a breakdown, which gives some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on performance (e.g., rate limits), data sources, or error handling, which are important for a tool that likely queries external services.

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, the score range, the factors combined, and the return format. Every part earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 complexity of computing a multi-factor score and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does and what it returns (score, grade, breakdown). However, it could benefit from mentioning data sources or limitations to fully guide an agent, especially without annotations.

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%, with clear descriptions for name, version, and ecosystem (including default and enum values). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters affect the score computation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 ('Compute a 0-100 Hound Score') and the resource ('for a package version'), listing the four factors combined: vulnerability severity, OpenSSF Scorecard, release recency, and license risk. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a comprehensive scoring metric rather than specific checks like advisories, audit, or license_check.

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 when needing an overall risk assessment for a package version, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hound_vulns for vulnerabilities or hound_license_check for license risk. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection among siblings.

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