eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_bom_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type 'File | undefined' and 'BOM 文件数据', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it generates a new file or reads existing), potential failure modes, or any data transformation. For a file retrieval tool, more transparency about what happens if the file doesn't exist or if parameters are invalid is needed.

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 brief and to the point, but it is essentially a function signature plus a one-line Chinese description. It is not excessively verbose, but the lack of structure (no sections, no example) makes it difficult to parse. The key information (purpose) is front-loaded, but the parameter list is a bit dense without explanations.

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 of the parameters (multiple optional parameters including filterOptions, statistics, columns) and the fact that there is no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent would not know what filterOptions or statistics mean, nor what the returned File contains. The description does not cover how to set up the BOM or what file formats are supported beyond the enum.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a generic description '按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组' (JSON parameter array in official signature order), which is not helpful. The description itself lists several parameters with their types (e.g., fileName, fileType, template), but does not explain their meaning or how they influence the output. Since the schema coverage is high but uninformative, the description adds some value by naming the parameters but lacks semantic detail.

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 clear verb 'getBomFile' and resource 'BOM file', and the Chinese '获取 BOM 文件' confirms the purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_gerber_file or get_netlist_file by the resource name, but doesn't explicitly highlight what distinguishes it from the schematic BOM file tool (eda_sch_manufacture_data_get_bom_file).

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 this tool is for PCB BOM files, and the context (windowId for target window) provides some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the schematic BOM file tool, nor any mention of prerequisites like having an active PCB document or needing to set up templates first.

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