hound_upgrade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking every published version but does not disclose potential network dependencies, rate limits, performance implications, or error behavior (e.g., if no safe version exists). This is a significant gap for a tool that requires external calls.

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, zero wasted words. First sentence states core purpose, second adds method detail. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple query tool, the description explains what it returns (nearest safe version) and the method (checks each published version). It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but given the absence of output schema, it is reasonably complete. Sibling tools imply similar interface patterns.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the version concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 finds the minimum version upgrade that resolves all known vulnerabilities for a package. It uses a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'minimum version upgrade', and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like hound_advisories (list advisories) or hound_vulns (list vulnerabilities).

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 a user has a vulnerable package and wants the minimal safe upgrade. It explicitly mentions checking every published version and returning the nearest safe one, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for excluded scenarios.

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