expand_bom

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true) and openness (openWorldHint=true). The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it discloses recursion into import-scope BOMs and conflict resolution via first-wins ordering, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral qualifier (recursion, ordering) follows immediately.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose and key resolution behavior adequately, though it omits any usage context or repository-resolution caveats for projectPath.

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%, so all four parameters (groupId, artifactId, version, projectPath) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (expand) and resource (Maven BOM), and clarifies the outcome (managed dependency versions). The purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps with BOM expansion, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other dependency tools.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_transitive_graph or scan_project_dependencies. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information.

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