bom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the merge rule (part_no+material+description, quantities summed), the side effect of writing CSV and Markdown files, and the mass derivation formula. It doesn't say whether existing files are overwritten or what happens when metadata is missing.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then outputs and the mass formula. No filler, though the parenthetical field list slightly interrupts the flow.

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?

Outputs are covered by the output schema, so the return-value summary is a bonus. However, for a tool that writes files and has an undocumented `objects` parameter, the definition leaves material gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly explains `doc` via the output path (workspace/bom/<doc>/) and says nothing about `objects` — whether it filters to a subset of parts or defaults to all objects in the document.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: builds a bill of materials from object metadata, with explicit merge/sum rules and file outputs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mass_properties or export, though it doesn't name 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?

Implies a prerequisite by naming the set_properties fields (part_no, description, material, supplier, quantity) that must be populated first, and by scoping outputs to workspace/bom/<doc>/. But it never states when to prefer this over export or mass_properties, nor any exclusions.

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