variant_export_bom

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

With only openWorldHint as an annotation, the description adds context by specifying the output goes to the project output directory, implying a file write. However, it does not disclose more about side effects, overwrites, or required project state, which are not covered by the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, object, and destination efficiently, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with a required variant and a format parameter. It does not clarify the meaning of the variant or the allowed formats, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. While the output schema covers return values, the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 the parameters. It does not explain the 'variant' parameter values, the 'format' parameter options, or any defaults beyond the schema. The vague phrase 'variant-specific' provides no practical guidance for using the parameters.

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', the resource 'variant-specific BOM', and the destination 'project output directory'. This distinguishes it from generic export_bom and other variant tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for variant-specific BOMs, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over export_bom or other export tools. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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