hound_upgrade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it checks 'every published version' and returns the 'nearest safe one,' which explains the algorithm's scope and output nature. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens when no safe version exists.

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 that front-load the core purpose and follow with implementation details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The structure moves from goal to mechanism efficiently.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and its basic behavior but lacks details about output format, error handling, performance characteristics, or ecosystem-specific considerations that would be helpful given the complexity.

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, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'version' parameter should be the 'current vulnerable version' and that the tool finds upgrades to resolve vulnerabilities, giving context beyond the schema's technical descriptions. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 ('find the minimum version upgrade'), target resource ('package'), and outcome ('resolves all known vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on upgrade recommendations rather than vulnerability listing (hound_vulns), auditing (hound_audit), or other package analysis functions.

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 you have a vulnerable package and want to find the nearest safe upgrade, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hound_vulns (for vulnerability details) or hound_compare (for version comparisons). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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