aras_list_methods

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It indicates 'ricercabili per nome' (searchable by name), implying a read-only search operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, output format, pagination, or authentication requirements. It adds some value by specifying the name-based search, but leaves significant behavioral details unaddressed.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and a crucial relation to aras_aml_request. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary purpose (search server methods by name) and notes their invocability, but it does not specify what the response contains (e.g., method names vs. full definitions) or how pagination works. For a simple list tool it is adequate, yet lacks enough detail to fully prepare an agent for the returned data.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It mentions 'ricercabili per nome' which directly maps to the 'cerca' parameter, but it fails to describe the 'limite' parameter or clarify that 'cerca' acts as a filter on method names. The description provides only minimal guidance, leaving one of two parameters entirely underexplained.

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 explicitly states 'Metodi server definiti in Aras, ricercabili per nome' (server methods defined in Aras, searchable by name), clearly identifying the resource and primary action. The phrase 'utili per capire quale logica personalizzata esiste' reinforces its role as a discovery tool, aligning perfectly with the name aras_list_methods.

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 says 'Utili per capire quale logica personalizzata esiste' (useful to understand which custom logic exists), defining the discovery use case. It also notes 'invocabili con aras_aml_request' (invokable with aras_aml_request), implicitly directing agents to use aras_aml_request for execution, thereby distinguishing this listing tool from its invocation sibling.

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