SKUit BOM Builder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the semantic content of each returned item ('represents a deployment scenario'), which helps an agent decide whether the output is what it needs. No return format or pagination detail, but the list is presumably small and static.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and followed by the definition and the routing cue. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the tool returns and why to call it first. It could go slightly further by naming the sibling tools it precedes, but it is functionally 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing filtering options.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List available use-case profiles for BOM building') and clarifies what a use case is by giving concrete examples (campus access, data center top-of-rack). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it complements, but the list/session/submit distinction is implicit in 'Start here'.

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?

'Start here to understand what kinds of BOMs you can build' gives clear entry-point context, implying this should be called before bom_start_session or bom_submit_input. No explicit when-not or alternative routing, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but don't explain the session model. The description fills that gap by disclosing that a session_id and the first step's options are returned, and that the id must be threaded into bom_submit_input. It omits auth/permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: what it does, what it returns, and the prerequisite tool. No repetition of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by naming the return payload (session_id plus first-step options). Combined with the 100%-covered single-param schema and clear sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the single parameter is documented with concrete example IDs, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Begin a new BOM building session for a specific use case.' This is clearly distinguishable from bom_list_use_cases (enumeration) and bom_submit_input (advancing a session).

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use bom_list_use_cases first to see available use case IDs' and names bom_submit_input as the follow-on tool, establishing the workflow ordering. It doesn't state a when-not-to-use condition, but for a step-0 tool this covers the practical selection need.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict; it adds genuine context by clarifying that going back or changing an answer prunes lines from the in-progress draft only, and no saved BOM is deleted. It also names the return payload. Missing details on error/retry behavior keep it below 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the loop contract, then the state-mutation caveat. No repetition or filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return values (updated BOM state, next step options, decision chips) and by explaining the termination condition and session continuity. An agent has everything needed to drive the session correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both message (free text or decision_chip) and session_id (from bom_start_session). The description restates the message semantics without adding format, length, or escaping guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Submit') plus resource ('user input for the current step of a BOM session'), and the sibling set (bom_start_session, bom_list_use_cases) makes clear this is the continuation/driving loop rather than session creation. Distinguishable without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit operating context: call repeatedly with the same session_id until the session reaches the COMPLETE step, and that the message may be free text or a decision_chip from the previous step. Lacks explicit exclusions relative to siblings, but the loop condition is actionable.

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