aras_aml_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the SOAP envelope is automatic, that raw AML is executed, and that write actions are blocked to read-only. It does not mention response format or error behavior, but the core safety and execution behavior are clear.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. Every sentence contributes: what it executes, when to use it, what to pass, and what is blocked. There is no filler.

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 single-parameter escape-hatch tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers invocation style, intended usage, safety constraints, and scope. The schema provides the example, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the schema provides a concrete example for itemXml. The description adds value by clarifying that the caller should pass only the <Item .../> fragment and that the SOAP envelope is handled automatically, preventing callers from wrapping the input themselves.

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 states a specific action ('esegue AML grezzo contro InnovatorServer.aspx') and gives concrete use cases such as query logic not expressible with $filter and server methods. It clearly positions itself as the raw/escape-hatch tool distinct from the higher-level sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this only for what OData does not cover, listing examples like $filter limitations, server methods, and special actions. It also excludes write operations by noting they are blocked, but it does not name specific alternative sibling tools.

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