iqms_boms_explode

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses default single-level and recursion via max_level, but omits critical behavioral details such as output format, error handling, side effects, or required permissions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and default behavior. No wasted words, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating default and override) could improve scannability.

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 no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the output (e.g., list of component details), pagination, or any edge cases. The agent lacks enough context to fully interpret results.

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?

The description adds meaning to 'max_level' beyond the schema (clarifies recurrence), but provides no additional info about 'parent_item'. With schema coverage at 50% and only 2 parameters, the description partially compensates.

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 the action ('Explode a BOM') and the resource, with specific detail on default behavior and recursion via max_level. It naturally distinguishes from sibling 'iqms_boms_where_used' which finds where a BOM is used, not its components.

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 implies when to use (exploding a BOM) and how to deepen the explosion, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. No mention of preconditions or exclusions.

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