get_bom

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: it returns a normalized BOM with multi-part RefDes deduplication. However, it does not mention error behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or how parameters like grouped and include_dnp alter the result.

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 filler. Every word adds value, efficiently conveying the core purpose and key transformation.

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 incomplete for invocation: parameter semantics are entirely absent, and no workflow context is provided. The normalization/dedup detail is useful but insufficient for correct use without annotations or parameter guidance.

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%, and the description never mentions any of the three parameters (path, grouped, include_dnp). The parameter meanings are not explained, leaving the agent without information about what 'path' refers to or what 'grouped' / 'include_dnp' control.

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 names a specific action ('Return'), a specific resource ('schematic or PCB BOM'), and a distinctive feature ('multi-part RefDes deduplication'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling BOM-related tools like export_bom or group_bom.

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 given on when to use get_bom versus alternatives such as export_bom, group_bom, or detect_duplicate_bom_items. The description implies its use for retrieving a BOM but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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