review_bom

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits. It only says 'Review' without clarifying whether it is read-only, what it returns, or how it handles missing or inconsistent BOM data. The output schema exists but the description does not enrich it.

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 concise sentence that starts with the verb 'Review' and avoids extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: the meaning of 'path', how this tool relates to run_bom_review, and what specific checks 'identity' and 'DNP' involve. Given the complexity of BOM reviews and the large sibling set, this is incomplete.

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 schema has one parameter 'path' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'path' at all, leaving its meaning and format entirely unexplained. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states a specific action (Review) on a specific resource (BOM) and lists concrete aspects: identity, DNP, and value/pattern/MPN consistency. This makes the purpose understandable, though it does not differentiate from the sibling tool run_bom_review.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_bom_review or validate_mpn_consistency. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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