hound_vulns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes the output format ('grouped by severity with fix versions and advisory links'), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or whether this queries a live database or cached information. For a vulnerability lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List all known vulnerabilities for a specific package version') and adds valuable output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic functionality explanation. However, it lacks important context about behavioral characteristics (rate limits, auth needs) and doesn't help differentiate from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about return values, but it does mention the grouping structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('vulnerabilities for a specific package version') with specific output characteristics ('grouped by severity with fix versions and advisory links'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its 10 siblings, particularly hound_advisories which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hound_advisories, hound_audit, or hound_inspect. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or when other tools might be more suitable.

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