extract_bill_of_materials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the output mapping (each block becomes a row, each attribute becomes a column) and the block restriction behavior. But it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, how blocks without attributes are treated, or what happens on missing/invalid paths.

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 three sentences with no fluff: a clear purpose, a valuable transformation detail, and a parameter tip. Every sentence contributes unique information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool is relatively simple (2 parameters, no nested objects), and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, the missing explanation of the required 'path' parameter and the lack of explicit when-to-use guidance leave some gaps. Still, the core extraction behavior and output shape are well covered, making it adequate but not complete.

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 for both parameters. It clearly explains the optional 'block' parameter ('restrict the extract to one block name'), but the required 'path' parameter is not described at all. Even a basic statement about what path should point to would have lifted this toward a 3.

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 ('Extract') with a clear resource ('bill of materials from block insertions and their attributes'). The row/column transformation detail makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drawings, list_layers, or drawing_summary, even without naming them.

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 ERP/PLM sentence provides an implied use case for when this extraction is needed, and 'Pass block to restrict the extract to one block name' gives a parameter-level usage hint. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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