eagle_bom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the grouping keys, that parts without a package (frames, supply symbols) are omitted, and that a CSV can optionally be written with relative paths resolving to the current output folder. It omits error/edge conditions but transparently covers the meaningful behavior and side effects.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense with useful detail. The bracketed '[Autodesk EAGLE ...]' preamble is somewhat verbose tool-family context, but it is separated from the operational description and does not obscure the main statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still covers grouping, exclusions, and file-writing behavior. For a 2-parameter extraction tool with a file side effect and no annotations, this is complete enough to call 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that design_file is an EAGLE XML schematic/board (implying format and that no EAGLE install is required) and that output_csv is optional with relative-path resolution semantics, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 precise verb+resource: producing a 'Bill of materials from an EAGLE schematic or board (XML, no EAGLE needed)'. It further specifies how the BOM is grouped (value, package, manufacturer, MPN) and what is excluded, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling eagle_netlist or eagle_read_design without opening the 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?

It implies usage via '(XML, no EAGLE needed)' and the optional CSV note, and clarifies the tool works on files directly. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over eagle_read_design or eagle_netlist, or any prerequisites/exclusions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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