export_bom

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already indicate. It does not explain the implications of destructiveHint=true or openWorldHint=true, such as what files might be written or what side effects occur, so it fails to provide useful transparency.

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 a single short sentence and is not bloated, so it is concise in length. However, it simply restates the tool name and lacks substantive content, making it more under-specified than effectively concise.

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 has an output schema and annotations, but the description is incomplete for an export tool. It does not clarify which BOM (base variant, active variant, etc.) is exported, what output formats are available, or how it differs from related export tools in the same domain.

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?

The only parameter 'format' is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain valid formats or how the format affects the export, leaving agents without essential parameter knowledge.

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 clearly states the verb 'export' and the resource 'bill of materials', which communicates the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'variant_export_bom' or 'lib_get_bom_with_pricing' that also involve BOM outputs, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative usage scenarios, providing only a bare statement of the action.

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