aras_list_sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavioral nuance — the conditional tense 'verrebbe assegnato' indicates the tool does NOT consume the sequence counter, which is valuable for a read-only listing tool. However, it doesn't disclose whether the listing reflects the caller's permissions, whether sequences can be filtered, or what fields accompany each sequence entry.

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?

A single efficient sentence in Italian with no wasted words. The resource type is front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and the key behavioral detail. Minor deduction for omitting an explicit leading verb (e.g., 'Elenca...' / 'Lists...') and for the language mismatch between the English tool name and Italian description, though the latter may be intentional for end users.

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?

For a parameter-less read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate — it identifies the resource, gives examples, and clarifies the non-consuming nature of the read. However, it doesn't describe the structure of the return value (mapping? array of objects?), which would be helpful since there's no output schema to rely on.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The 0-param baseline is 4, and the description adds value by clarifying what each listed item contains (sequence identifier and its next value), partially compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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 a specific resource (configured automatic numbering sequences) with concrete examples (ECR, ECN, Part...) and a valuable differentiator — it shows the next value that would be assigned. The verb 'list' in the name plus the description's specificity make the purpose unambiguous, and the resource is distinct from sibling list_* tools.

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?

With over 80 sibling tools, including similar list_* operations (aras_list_reports, aras_list_item_types, aras_list_dashboards), the description offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternative tools for related needs like checking specific sequence assignments or counters.

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