aras_get_list_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical behavior: out-of-list values appear valid to the schema but fail in Aras. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., a list of values per property, a flat list, etc.) or any other behavioral nuances like error handling. While the warning is valuable, the disclosure is incomplete given the absence of annotations.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical usage warning is included efficiently. It is exemplary in conciseness and structural clarity.

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 covers the core functionality and the validation caveat, but does not explain the return format or any limitations (e.g., does it return values for all list properties or only a specific one?). For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is a noticeable omission. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already describes itemType with examples ('Part', 'Document'), and the description adds contextual meaning (it is used to fetch list values for that item type) but does not go beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description adds no further parameter-level detail.

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 returns allowed values from list-type properties of an ItemType, with concrete examples (make_buy, unit, drawing_size). It is specific about the resource (list properties) and the action, and no sibling tool appears to serve this specific purpose, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 call this tool BEFORE creating an item, and explains why: out-of-list values pass schema validation but are rejected or ignored by Aras. This provides a clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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