aras_how_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses its sources (field knowledge and instance catalog), its exclusion of official docs, and its intent to answer questions. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or side-effect free, though the 'CONSULTA' prefix implies no mutation. This is a minor but notable omission.

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 front-loaded with an imperative call to action ('CONSULTA PRIMA DI TENTARE') and is efficiently structured: what it does, its sources, why not official docs, and when to use. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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's advisory role and simple parameter set, the description covers the essential context: when to use, what it answers, and its sources. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists, and the absence is acceptable for a text-based Q&A tool. Overall, sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the two sources (verified field knowledge and instance catalog), which directly maps to the 'conIstanza' flag. This contextual link enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb ('risponde a') and resource ('come si fa X su Aras da un client esterno' and 'perche' questo errore'). It clearly differentiates itself from official Aras documentation and implies a unique consultation role distinct from direct data operations. While it doesn't name sibling tools like aras_lookup_error, its purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Chiamalo quando una chiamata fallisce in modo incomprensibile, o prima di tentare qualcosa di insolito.' It also gives a negative guideline (do not follow official docs). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool beyond those conditions, which leaves some room for improvement.

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