bom

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only operation. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations: qty is interpreted as a rate per minute, the result is LP-solved rather than tree-expanded because recipe cycles lack a safe depth, and each row names its chosen recipe. It does not cover pagination, save pinning, or output shape, but it meaningfully improves understanding of the computation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core output, and the second explains the important qty and LP-solving semantics. There is no filler.

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?

This is a complex 11-parameter planning tool with no output schema and very low schema description coverage. The description covers the central BOM concept and qty semantics but omits most parameter behavior and does not describe return structure, pagination, save pinning, or outlet/sink handling. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation across all provided parameters.

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 only 18% across 11 parameters, so the description needs to compensate but does not. It explains that qty is a rate per minute and that the calculation is for an item, but it leaves save/as_of, world, limit/offset, outlets, allow_sinks, only_recipes, and exclude_recipes unexplained. The note that alternates change totals hints at recipe selection but does not document the filtering parameters.

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 identifies the resource clearly: a flattened bill of materials for an item at a given qty/min, including raw and intermediate rates, chosen recipes, and machines per row. It also distinguishes the LP-based approach from tree expansion. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is still clear.

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 that the tool is used to calculate a bill of materials for an item at a rate per minute. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to relevant siblings such as trace_upstream, recipe_detail, compare_recipe_options, or plan_factory.

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