aras_list_saved_searches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns all saved searches or only the current user's, or any performance implications. The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context beyond the name.

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 short sentence, which is concise. It is front-loaded with the resource name. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for a 0-parameter tool, it is acceptable.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the tool returns and how it differs from similar list tools. The description is too thin to be considered complete; an agent might not know if this returns a list of names, full criteria, or how to use the results.

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 tool has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description adds a bit of context by mentioning 'criteria' which might be part of the return value, but since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 for 0 params 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 'Ricerche salvate dagli utenti, con i criteri che usano' (Saved searches from users, with the criteria they use) states the resource (saved searches) and implies a listing action, but the verb is implicit. It distinguishes from siblings like aras_list_reports and aras_list_queries by mentioning 'saved searches' and 'criteria', but the purpose is not fully explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aras_list_queries or aras_search. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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