fusion_bom

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

The description states the operation is 'Return', which implies a read-only behavior, and 'flattened' reveals that it flattens the BOM hierarchy. However, with no annotations available, the description does not disclose whether there are any side effects, permissions, error conditions, or output format expectations beyond its terse statement.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the primary function and adds no redundancy. 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 a single parameter, the description covers the core function ('flattened BoM') but leaves gaps: there is no mention of whether the document must be an assembly, whether occurrence quantities are calculated at the top level or including nested, or what the return object looks like (especially since there is no output schema).

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%, but the description still adds no meaning to the only parameter, document_id. While 'document_id' is a self-explanatory name, the description could have said what kind of document (Fusion design, assembly) or how to obtain the ID, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a specific resource ('flattened component bill of materials and occurrence quantities'). The phrase clearly indicates the tool provides BoM data, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like fusion_assembly or fusion_assembly_tree.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and basic semantics.

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