aras_get_bom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recursive explosion behavior, the returned tree structure (components with quantities and cumulative quantities), and the read-oriented framing 'restituendo'. However, it does not mention depth-limit behavior, cycle handling, or explicitly declare read-only safety.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first front-loads the core behavior and output, the second provides usage context. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 simple read tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and conceptually describes the return value (component tree with quantities and cumulative quantities). The main gap is that, without an output schema, the exact return structure is not specified, and edge cases like depth limits or cycles are unaddressed.

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% — both partId ('id della Part radice') and depth ('Livelli di esplosione', default 3, max 10) are documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying recursion relates to depth, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — 'Esplode la distinta base (BOM) di una Part in modo ricorsivo' — and specifies the output: the component tree with quantities and cumulative quantities. The question examples ('da cosa e' composto questo prodotto') clearly distinguish it from reverse-lookup siblings like aras_where_used.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: 'E' il modo corretto di rispondere a domande tipo "da cosa e' composto questo prodotto" o "quanti pezzi di X servono in totale".' This gives clear selection context, but it does not name alternative tools or state when-not conditions explicitly, so it stops short of a full 5.

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