export_bom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add useful behavior: the CSV is UTF-8, ';'-separated, and is written as a side effect when path is supplied. It does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, what happens when no assembly is active, or that the operation is otherwise read-only, leaving gaps for a tool with a write side effect.

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?

Front-loaded with what is exported, then purpose, then per-argument notes; no filler sentences. The column list is long but each item is informative, and the args block is compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the argument semantics are largely covered. What remains missing for an export tool with no annotations is failure behavior (no active document, bad path) and differentiation from the other export tools, which the description never addresses.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates well by defining both undocumented parameters: view's two modes ('parts_only' flattening with total quantity vs 'structured' indented sub-assemblies) and path's file format and encoding. Only the `instance` parameter's meaning lives solely in the schema, and that is documented there.

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 and resource ('Bill of materials of the active assembly') and enumerates the exported columns, so the agent knows exactly what comes out. It does not name the sibling export tools (export_document, export_flat_pattern) it must be distinguished from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an intended consumer ('For purchasing / ERP') and a prerequisite ('set part numbers and descriptions first'), which is real usage guidance. However, the prerequisite names 'properties()', a function that does not appear among the siblings (edit_properties does), and no alternative export tool is mentioned for when a full document or flat pattern is wanted.

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