pcb_parse_bom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the parse-and-attach behavior and mentions the session, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., replacing existing BOM data), error handling, or return value. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, input types, and purpose. No redundant or filler content.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior and downstream purpose. It could mention whether the session must already exist or whether the BOM replaces existing data, but these are implied by schema descriptions and the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that file_path is a BOM file and session_id is used to attach items, but it doesn't add new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Parse' with resource 'BOM (CSV or Excel)' and clarifies the purpose: attaching items to the session for downstream analyzers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that parse other file types (schematic, layout, STEP).

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?

It states the intended use context (for downstream cross-reference and rating analyzers) and implies that this tool is for BOM files. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the description gives clear context about when to use it versus other parsing tools.

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