Generate BOM

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description uses 'Generate', which might imply mutation, but it's not a strong contradiction. It does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as no side effects or rate limits.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. It has 3 parameters with enums. The description mentions grouping and formatting but does not explain that projectId is required or its format. Given the complexity (simple BOM generation) and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like easyeda_bom_export.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is on the description. It mentions 'grouping and formatting options', which partially describes the 'groupBy' and 'format' parameters. However, it does not explain the 'projectId' or the enum values. The schema already defines enums, so the description adds some meaning but not full compensation.

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 clearly states it generates a bill of materials for the project, mentioning grouping and formatting options. The title 'Generate BOM' directly conveys the action. It distinguishes from siblings like easyeda_bom_export and easyeda_bom_validate, which focus on exporting or validating, not generating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. For example, it does not differentiate from easyeda_bom_export for outputting the BOM.

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