aras_query_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the main behavioral burden. The term 'Interroga' implies a read operation, and the OData mention sets expectations about filter syntax, but the description does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or whether results are limited. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the useful precondition advice appears second. Every word earns its place.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is compact but not fully complete. It gives working context but does not describe the return format, how pagination params interact, or any error-prone behaviors beyond property-name confusion.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the role of itemType and property names, but it adds little beyond what the filter/select/orderby/itemType descriptions already state. Slight value comes from framing everything as OData and advising about property-name lookup.

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 ('Interroga') and resource ('elementi di un ItemType') with OData syntax. It clearly communicates the core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like aras_get_item or aras_run_query.

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 gives practical routing guidance: if property names are uncertain, call aras_describe_item_type first. This is a clear 'before using this tool' instruction, though it does not address comparison with other query-like siblings such as aras_get_item or aras_run_query.

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