digikey_build_electronics_bom

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions saving a versioned bom.json and keeping custom items separate, but does not explain side effects like network access, auth requirements, or the effect of modes (offline/sandbox/production) from the schema. The description lacks detail on what happens when items are unresolved.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the tool's actions. It is not verbose, but could be more structured with bullet points or separate lines to improve readability. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (13 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify how inputs like constraints, budget, or preferred_package are used. The output is mentioned briefly, but the overall behavior in relation to inputs is unclear.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool's description does not explain any of the 13 parameters, not even the required 'project_description'. This leaves the agent guessing about input semantics.

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 the tool's purpose: planning architecture, building a requirement ledger, sourcing lines, and saving a BOM. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like digikey_refine_bom or digikey_validate_bom, which might perform similar tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for building a BOM from scratch, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling would be more appropriate.

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