bosch_get_components

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It discloses that the data source varies by sign-in type (mobile app API vs. Data Act registrations), which is a key behavioral detail. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a read-only list tool, this is adequate.

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?

Description is well-structured with a summary sentence, a detailed explanation of returned data, source behavior, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with purpose. Slightly longer than minimal but each sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (list with optional filters) and existence of an output schema, description sufficiently explains what the tool does and returns. It covers use cases and data source nuances, making it complete for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description compensates fully by explaining both optional parameters: bike_id filters to one bike, component_type filters to types like 'driveUnit', 'battery', etc. Examples add meaning beyond schema, making parameters self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists registered eBike components with software versions. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'components from Bosch eBike', distinguishing from sibling tools like bosch_get_bike (single bike) or bosch_get_batteries (specific component).

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?

Description explains usefulness for tracking firmware versions and service purposes. It also notes the source depends on account type (Flow vs. euda), providing context for when different behaviors apply. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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