aras_get_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool returns only metadata and a download URL, that the server does not download or read file contents, and that uploads from an external client are rejected by Aras. This is unusually candid and leaves little room for the agent to assume content is returned.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the critical 'metadata only' warning is clearly separated. The upload note is somewhat redundant ('not possible from external client' and 'must be uploaded from Aras interface') and includes implementation detail (JavaScript/C#), but overall the structure is scannable.

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 metadata-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is nearly complete: it names the input domain, the fields returned, and the post-retrieval action (authenticated URL fetch). It omits minor operational details such as pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior, but an agent can invoke it correctly with the provided information.

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 only 50% (id has a description; itemType has only an enum), and the description adds the Document/CAD context that ties both parameters to the attachment scope. It does not, however, explain exactly how itemType and id combine, GUID formats, or any constraints beyond the enum, so compensation for the low coverage is partial.

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 identifies a specific resource — physical files attached to a Document or CAD — and enumerates the returned fields (name, size, MIME type, download URL). The explicit 'returns metadata, not content' note differentiates it from content-fetching operations such as aras_read_file, though it does not name the 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?

It clearly states the tool is for metadata and a URL, and says content must be fetched separately by following the URL with an authenticated client. However, it never names the preferred sibling alternative (e.g., aras_read_file) or gives explicit conditions for choosing this tool over other attachment/document tools; the guidance on upload is tangential to selecting this tool.

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