hound_score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It lists what the score combines (vulnerability, scorecard, recency, license) and return format, but does not disclose side effects, network usage, or authentication needs. It's a read operation but not explicitly stated.

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?

Single sentence with all key info: action, resource, combining factors, output. Front-loaded and no redundant 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?

Given 3 simple params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, combining factors, and output format (letter grade with breakdown). Lacks details on breakdown structure but sufficient for typical use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds context about the score composition but does not elaborate on parameter constraints (e.g., version format, ecosystem specificity) beyond schema. Acceptable but not enhanced.

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 computes a 0-100 Hound Score for a package version, combining multiple factors, and returns a letter grade with breakdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hound_vulns or hound_audit by focusing on a holistic 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?

The description implies the tool is for overall score computation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like hound_audit or hound_vulns. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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