aras_run_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns data and that XSL transformation is only for client-side rendering, implying a read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, though the read-centric nature is implied.

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 concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and directly addresses the tool's main function and a key parameter, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simple schema, the description covers the essential function and parameter context. It does not specify the return format or error handling, but for a straightforward report execution tool, it is adequately complete. The missing details on massimo and nome slightly reduce completeness.

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 description explains the purpose of contestoId (the context element id for parametric reports) but does not clarify nome or massimo. The schema only provides types and constraints, so the description adds meaning for one parameter but leaves the other two undefined, giving partial coverage.

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 runs a report and returns raw data, distinguishing it from XSL-based graphical rendering. It also notes that many reports are parametric, giving a clear sense of its primary function.

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 provides usage instructions for the contestoId parameter ('passa contestoId con l'id dell'elemento su cui eseguirlo') but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like aras_run_query or aras_get_item. It implies when to use it (when you need report data) but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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