export_bom

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the basic behavior (export BOM as CSV) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation), authorization needs, or what happens when output is null. The behavior is adequately described for a simple read-like operation, but lacks depth.

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 single sentence is extremely concise. However, it could integrate brief parameter hints without losing efficiency. It earns a high score for being front-loaded and readable.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It conveys the core function but omits parameter context and expected output behavior, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 description mentions CSV format but does not explain the 'project' or 'output' parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter-level details beyond the tool's overall purpose.

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 'Export the schematic Bill of Materials as CSV' clearly states the action (export), the resource (schematic BOM), and the output format (CSV). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling export tools like export_gerbers or export_netlist by naming the exact output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., export_netlist, export_gerbers). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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