catia_export_bom_csv

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

Annotations mark it as not read-only and not destructive, so the write side effect is already implied; the description adds that it writes to a CSV file. It does not disclose whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the operation requires saving, or what happens if no assembly is active.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, target, and output contents without wasted words. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core purpose well. Missing context includes what the tool returns or confirms after writing, whether the destination file is overwritten, and how max_depth interacts with nested assemblies, leaving some non-trivial behavior undocumented.

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 coverage is 100%, so both path and max_depth are already documented. The description adds useful context about which BOM fields are exported but does not clarify how max_depth affects the BOM content beyond the schema's 'Recursion depth' note.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write'), identifies the exact resource ('active assembly's bill of materials'), and specifies the output artifact (CSV file) and the included fields. This clearly distinguishes it from generic export tools and the read-oriented catia_bill_of_materials sibling.

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 phrase 'active assembly' implies it should be used only when a CATIA assembly is active and the caller wants a CSV BOM export. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like catia_bill_of_materials or catia_export, nor does it mention failure cases or alternatives.

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