hound_score

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the scoring factors and output, but does not state side effects (likely none), required permissions, or failure conditions (e.g., if package not found). The read-only nature is assumed but not confirmed.

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, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: specifies numeric range, factors, and output format. No redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return format (letter grade with breakdown). However, it lacks details on the breakdown structure (e.g., numeric sub-scores) and does not address edge cases like missing data or unsupported packages. With siblings, more usage context would improve completeness.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that 'name' and 'version' identify the package and 'ecosystem' (with default) is optional. However, it does not explain how ecosystem influences the score, leaving some nuance unaddressed.

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 it computes a 0-100 Hound Score for a package version, listing the factors involved (vulnerability severity, OpenSSF Scorecard, etc.) and the output (letter grade A-F with breakdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hound_advisories or hound_vulns by focusing on a composite score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies assessing package health, but does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., hound_audit for detailed audit, hound_vulns for vulnerabilities). An agent would need to infer usage from the name alone.

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