hound_upgrade

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

With no annotations provided, the description informs that the tool 'checks every published version', implying a potentially expensive operation, and 'returns the nearest safe one', indicating a read-only query. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like rate limiting, network usage, or any required permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and action. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is efficiently structured.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (likely a version string) or behavior when no safe version is found. It also omits information about rate limits, caching, or ecosystem-specific nuances beyond the enum. While adequate for a simple tool, it is not fully complete.

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%, providing clear definitions for each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond confirming that the 'version' parameter is the current vulnerable version, which is already implied. Thus, the description adds marginal value, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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's purpose: finding the minimum version upgrade that resolves vulnerabilities. The verb 'find' and resource 'minimum version upgrade' are specific, and the context of vulnerability resolution distinguishes it from siblings like hound_vulns (which lists vulnerabilities) and hound_audit (which likely audits current state).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it, such as for packages not in the listed ecosystems, or alternatives like hound_audit for a full audit.

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