compare_bom_options_tool

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the tool compares evidence completeness and known costs and explicitly avoids fabricating a winner, which sets expectations for the kind of output it produces.

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?

A single sentence delivers the purpose and a behavioral caveat with no filler. The main comparison dimensions are front-loaded before the caveat, and every word 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the one-line description is near-minimal but leaves gaps: the expected shape/content of 'boms' is undocumented and 'evidence completeness' and 'known costs' are not defined. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks enough detail for confident invocation without further inference.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage and the sole parameter 'boms' has no defined properties beyond an array of arbitrary objects. The description implies the array contains BOM options but does not explain what fields each BOM object should have, how evidence completeness or known costs are represented, or what structure is expected.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Compare'), a clear resource ('BOM options'), and specifies the dimensions ('evidence completeness and known costs'). The phrase 'without fabricating a winner' clarifies it is an evaluative comparison rather than a generation tool, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_bom_tool and recommend_architecture_tool.

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 the tool should be used when comparing multiple BOMs on evidence and cost, which is some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as screen_bom_for_compliance_tool or generate_bom_tool, and gives no exclusions.

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