manufacturing_list_boms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List Bills of Materials', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no BOMs exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'List Bills of Materials', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to the purpose, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (a list operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively. This leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('product_id' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 'List Bills of Materials' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Bills of Materials'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all BOMs vs. filtered) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'manufacturing_list_orders', which is a similar list operation in the same domain. This makes it vague in distinguishing its exact role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it does not mention sibling tools like 'inventory_list_products' or 'manufacturing_list_orders' that might be related. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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