Build a bill of materials

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details about grouping logic, exclusion of state values from part identity, and visibility of unknown components, going beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core behavior, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every phrase adds value.

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?

The main behavior and edge cases (excluded state values, unknown components) are well covered, and the output schema handles return values. However, the lack of parameter semantics for 'limit' and 'expectedProjectDigest' leaves some gaps in full self-sufficiency.

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 only 33%, with only 'path' having a description in the schema. The description does not explain 'limit' or 'expectedProjectDigest', and does little to compensate for the missing parameter semantics beyond implying the core grouping behavior.

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 groups components by kind and decoded part values into quantities, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by describing the special handling of state values and unknown components.

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 when to use the tool (to get a bill of materials) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It provides clear context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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