aras_export_aml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies an export/read operation but does not disclose whether the result is returned as a string or file, whether relationships are included, or what limits apply. The mention of 'conservare uno stato' hints at snapshot behavior but does not explain observable effects.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The use-case clause earns its place, though more structured detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough. An agent would not know how to supply the required itemType, what massimo and conRelazioni control, or what the export returns.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented itemType, massimo, and conRelazioni parameters. It does not add any parameter-level meaning; 'elementi' is too vague to explain what itemType should contain.

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 verb and resource: 'Esporta elementi in AML', and adds the native-exchange-format context. It is distinguishable from the import sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with aras_get_aml.

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 gives a clear use context: transferring configurations between Aras instances or preserving state. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives explicitly, but the stated scenarios are enough to indicate when this export tool is appropriate.

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