generate_interactive_bom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds that the output is lightweight and self-contained in a single file, but it never clarifies how the artifact is delivered (written to disk vs. returned inline) or that it depends on upstream synthesis output — a notable omission given readOnlyHint on a 'generate' tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and artifact, then lists the distinguishing features. No filler sentences and nothing redundant; every clause carries information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what the generated artifact contains, which partly compensates for the missing return definition. It still leaves open how the HTML is surfaced to the caller, the dependency on synthesize_circuit output, and any sizing/scale caveats around board dimensions.

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 title, modules, board_width_mm and board_height_mm with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (generate) and a precise resource (single-file Interactive HTML BOM / iBOM), and enumerates the artifact's contents (grouping table, SVG board map, hover/click inspection). An agent knows exactly what artifact this produces. It does not, however, name a sibling it differs from (e.g. export_assembly_drawing_svg or export_manufacturing_bom), so the sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (that `modules` must come from synthesize_circuit), and no comparison against the many other export/render siblings. Usage is only implied by the description's wording; nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over the alternatives.

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