proj_get_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 a fair job: it discloses truncation semantics ("limit_hit" true when the list stopped at limit with components left over), the "skipped_nil" condition, and that library metadata returned here is explicitly NOT authoritative. It never states outright that the call is read-only/side-effect free, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then structured Args/Returns blocks. The DATASHEET DISCIPLINE paragraph is long and slightly prescriptive, but it is actionable rather than filler; the only trimming available is some redundancy between that paragraph and the Returns mention of _datasheet_guidance.

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, yet the description still summarizes the return shape and the extra underscore-prefixed fields, and both parameters are documented. For a read/export tool with no mutation risk, the only missing element is explicit routing against the other BOM-export siblings.

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: project_path is explained as optional with None meaning the active project, and limit is given a role plus its default. The remaining gap is that limit's interaction with _datasheet_guidance and whether it caps per-part guidance is not spelled out.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Export a full BOM from the compiled project") and the Returns section enumerates exactly what is included (designator, comment/value, footprint, library reference, pin-net connections). It is clear on its own but never names the nearby BOM-producing siblings (design_generate_bom, design_bom_file, proj_export_bom_html), so an agent cannot discriminate purely from the text.

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?

There is real guidance about what to do AFTER calling it (fetch datasheets before concluding anything about a part), but nothing about when to choose this tool over design_generate_bom, design_bom_file, or proj_export_bom_html. Usage is implied by the name and the "compiled project" qualifier rather than stated as an explicit selection rule.

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