export_bom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that two CSVs are produced (the BOM plus an excluded-parts CSV) and that the source is the currently open board, but it omits where files are written and whether an open board is strictly required.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler; the format and the secondary output are front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being a fragment, but every word carries information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema export tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential facts: the output format, the secondary excluded-parts file, and the dependency on the open board. Only output destination details are missing, which is minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for.

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 the concrete artifact (JLCPCB-format BOM CSV) and the source (the open board), so an agent can distinguish it from export_cpl and the other export/report tools. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never names the sibling it is not, but the resource and format are unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement beyond the implicit 'open board', and no mention of how it relates to export_cpl or check_jlc_orientation, which an agent would likely need to choose between when preparing a JLCPCB order.

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