sw_bill_of_materials

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

While the annotations flag this tool as destructive and non-read-only, the description fails to add specific behavioral context, such as whether the operation modifies the underlying document directly, saves the BOM to a local filesystem, or creates a new linked object. It only mentions the optional CSV output.

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 highly concise and immediately tells the agent what output data to expect from the function call, putting the most important information (the list contents) first.

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 definition is incomplete regarding its nature. The tool's operational intent is vague; does it 'list' (read) or 'generate/save' (write)? While parameters suggest export, the description does not explicitly define the tool's core action relative to the document state.

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?

Given that parameter coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to define fields. However, it provides excellent semantic context for the result, specifying the complex data structure of the BOM (item, configuration, material, etc.), which is more valuable than the simple 'document title or path' schema description.

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 identifies the tool's function as generating a 'parts list' (Bill of Materials) and lists the key data points included (item, part, configuration, quantity, etc.). The specific content focus helps distinguish it from broader component listing tools in the same CAD suite.

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 definition provides almost no usage guidance. It does not specify whether this tool should be used when a designer needs a procurement list versus when they need a technical schematic list, nor does it provide any prerequisites (e.g., the assembly must be defined) for calling it.

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