aras_read_file

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 discloses the download mechanism, fallback behavior, return types per format, and the OCR limitation for scanned PDFs. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., file not found, permission issues) or whether the operation is read-only, but the read intent is clear from 'LEGGE IL CONTENUTO'.

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 dense but efficient, covering purpose, mechanism, return types, and a limitation in a few sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose with the Italian phrasing but no wasted sentences.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors: what it returns for different formats, the fallback, and the OCR limitation. It doesn't specify error handling or size limits beyond maxCaratteri, but the essential information for an agent to call it correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that fileId comes from aras_get_files and that maxCaratteri limits returned text, but these are minor additions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool reads file content (not just metadata), specifies the resource (File('<id>')/$value) and the fallback endpoint, and distinguishes it from aras_get_files which is for finding IDs. It also enumerates the return types for different formats, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says to use aras_get_files to find the ID, which is a clear prerequisite. It also explains behavior for scanned PDFs (says OCR needed instead of returning empty). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives for metadata-only needs, though the contrast with aras_get_files is implicit.

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