Get the bill of materials

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is already known. The description adds only that the result is an assembly BOM table, and does not disclose return format, how indented or multi_level affect output, or any other behavioral details. No contradiction exists, but no additional behavioral context is provided either.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key subject ('BOM table') is front-loaded. It earns its place, though it is minimal enough that it cannot carry much explanatory weight on its own.

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?

With no output schema, the description would need to convey more about what an agent can expect from the tool. It does not mention when to use it, what the returned BOM table contains, or how the boolean parameters change the result. For a five-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 100%, and the schema already documents document/workspace/element IDs plus the two boolean options and their defaults. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the assembly context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description together identify a clear resource: the assembly's bill of materials. 'BOM table' is specific enough to distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools, none of which target BOM data. However, the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a full verb statement, so it relies on the title for the action.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onshape_get_assembly or onshape_get_parts. The intended context is only implied by the word 'assembly', with no exclusions or selection criteria.

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