aras_get_identity_members

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 states what is returned (users and sub-groups) but doesn't disclose whether it's a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, potential errors, or pagination. For a simple getter, the lack of such detail is a gap, though the tool's read-only nature is strongly implied by the name and 'get' verb.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded purpose. The second sentence is a pointer to a sibling tool, which is helpful. Efficient.

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?

With a single parameter and a clear read intent, the description explains what it returns and how to find the id. No output schema, so the description covers the essentials. Could mention output format, but acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema coverageión, the description must explain the single parameter identityId. It does mention using aras_query_items to find the id of the department, implying identityId is that idikuha. However, it says

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 specifies the tool returns members (users and sub-groups) of an Aras identity (department, group, role). The verb 'get' plus the resource is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aras_get_lifecycle_map or aras_search, but the purpose is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings.

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 tells the user how to obtain the required identity id via aras_query_items on 'Identity', which is a concrete usage prerequisite. It implies when to use this tool (when you have the id and want members) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with alternatives. Still, it gives useful context.

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