aras_get_lifecycle_state

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

The description explains the tool's behavior thoroughly, including what it returns (current state, allowed transitions, missing role) and how it relates to underlying methods (getItemNextStates, promoteItem). It also clarifies the authorization failure mode, giving transparency beyond a simple getter.

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 paragraph that is informative without being overly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary context about authorization, maintaining a reasonable length. Some repetition occurs (mentioning the missing role twice), but it remains concise.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when to use the tool and what to expect, including the authorization nuance. It does not specify output format, but since no output schema is provided, this is acceptable. The explanation of failed promotions covers an important edge case.

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?

The input schema includes two parameters: id (no description) and itemType (only an example 'Part', 'ECR'). The main description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they relate to the item being queried. The example provides minimal context, but semantic clarity is largely missing.

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's purpose: retrieves the current lifecycle state, lists possible next states for the current user, and identifies missing roles that prevent promotion. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like promoteItem and getItemNextStates by including the authorization context.

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 implies usage scenarios (e.g., diagnosing why promotions fail due to missing roles) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like getLifecycleMap or promoteItem. It provides context but lacks direct 'use this when' guidance.

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