mrp_item_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior, the netting formula (on hand + incoming − on order), the branch-stopping rule for sub-assemblies, the once-only counting of parts used in two branches, and the canBuildWithoutBuying flag. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'view' label.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature, then explains key behaviors. It is efficient and every sentence adds value, though it is slightly long and could be broken into two sentences for readability.

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 read-only view tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape (indented tree, what to make/buy, canBuildWithoutBuying) and the key calculation rules. It does not detail pagination or exact output fields, but the core semantics an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool are present. The absence of annotations raises the burden, and the description mostly meets it.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds context for the overall semantics (e.g., how availability is calculated, how alsoMade/buyInstead affect the explosion) but does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 description states a specific verb ('view'), a resource ('one finished good'), and a precise scope: everything needed to build a quantity down every BOM level, against availability. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like mrp_plan by focusing on a read-only total view of one finished good.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a complete indented tree of what to make/buy for a single finished good and whether it can be built without buying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only framing and single-finished-good scope provide clear context. Sibling names like mrp_plan suggest a broader planning tool, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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