proj_export_bom_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the output is standalone with no external CSS/JS/Altium runtime dependency, is a one-shot static export, and notes the default and practical component limit. It does not mention overwrite behavior or file-write error handling, which are relevant for an export-to-path tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and follows a useful structure: behavior, use cases, args, returns. It is slightly repetitive about being 'self-contained' and 'standalone', but remains readable and appropriately sized.

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 description is complete for a static export tool: it covers output format, layout toggles, defaults, and return shape. It omits overwrite semantics for output_path and file-write failure behavior, which prevents a perfect score.

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, and it does: output_path is explained with its default workspace location, title explains the page heading/<title>, and limit explains the default 5000 and practical ceiling around 10000.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: export the project BOM as a self-contained interactive HTML file. This clearly distinguishes it from data-returning or non-HTML siblings such as proj_get_bom or proj_export_pdf.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: emailing a BOM to a manufacturer, archiving with a board release, or sharing with a non-Altium reviewer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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