aras_get_aml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the main source of behavioral information. It discloses what the tool returns — approved Manufacturer Parts and their related manufacturer — which is useful. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the response format or error behavior, though the 'get' verb in the tool name implies non-mutating access.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource (approved manufacturers) and then states the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the core elements: input subject (Part), output content, and intended use. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left to infer the exact response structure and identifier semantics. Adding an explicit statement like 'returns a list of approved manufacturer parts with manufacturer details for the given partId' would make it more complete.

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 only parameter `partId` appears in the schema just as a required string, with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'per una Part' (for a Part), which hints that `partId` identifies the Part, but it does not specify whether it is an Aras Item ID, keyed name, or another identifier. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves the identifier format unclear.

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 resource: the Approved Manufacturer List for a Part, including approved Manufacturer Parts and the related manufacturer. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the content and scope are unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools. The name `get_aml` reinforces the action.

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 states explicit business contexts: purchasing and evaluating second sources. It does not name alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over similar list tools like `aras_get_bom` or `aras_get_relationships`, but the intended use cases are clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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