aras_get_item

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 the tool retrieves an item, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it returns the full item or only specified properties, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and doesn't add context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'itemType' is, how 'select' works, or what the return value looks like. An agent would need to infer or guess about the 'select' parameter and the response format. The description is too thin for a tool with this complexity.

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 33% (only 'id' has a description). The description mentions the 'id' parameter (GUID) but doesn't explain 'itemType' or 'select'. The 'select' parameter is an array that likely controls which properties to return, but this is not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, and the schema itself is sparse.

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 states the tool retrieves a single item by its Aras ID (32-character GUID). It specifies the verb (recupera), resource (elemento), and the key identifier. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like aras_get_aml or aras_query_items, but the focus on a single item by ID is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for fetching a single item by ID, while aras_query_items or aras_search might be for broader queries. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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