aras_get_lifecycle_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavior: returning a full graph of states and transitions. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication/permission requirements, or any response-size expectations, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise: two focused sentences that front-load the key output and then explain its value. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler.

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 getter, the description gives a clear idea of the returned content and the purpose. A more detailed note on expected response structure or potential exceptions would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for the tool's low 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 100%, and the one parameter has a clear description with examples. The tool description itself doesn't add extra parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to because the schema already provides sufficient detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the complete graph of a lifecycle, including all states, transitions, and required roles. It also gives the intended use case, distinguishing it from narrower lifecycle-related tools like aras_get_lifecycle_state.

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 explains why an agent would use the tool: to understand which lifecycle paths exist and which roles can traverse them. It does not name specific exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to select it for lifecycle-path analysis.

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