aras_get_inbasket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the InBasket analogy and prerequisite lookup, but doesn't disclose whether it includes closed activities by default, pagination/limits, authentication requirements, or what the return structure looks like. The parameter 'soloAperte' is not mentioned in the description, leaving default behavior unclear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a helpful prerequisite. The second sentence is actionable guidance. It could be slightly more structured but is 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?

The description lacks behavioral details (return format, default filtering, ordering) that an agent needs when no output schema is present. It gives a useful prerequisite but leaves key operational aspects unspecified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'identityId' concept indirectly ('attivita' in carico a un'identita') and the prerequisite to find the id, but adds little beyond the schema. The 'soloAperte' parameter is not discussed in the description.

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 that the tool retrieves activities assigned to an identity (user or group) and explicitly equates it to Aras's InBasket, which distinguishes it from generic list tools. The verb 'Attivita' in carico' is specific, though it doesn't contrast with siblings like aras_get_my_identities or aras_query_items.

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 explicitly instructs to first find the identity id with aras_query_items on 'Identity', giving clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite workflow is useful.

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