aras_where_used

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 implies a read-only lookup ('trova TUTTI gli assiemi'), but never states that it is non-mutating or describes any side effects, permissions, or performance implications. Because it is a query, the risk is low, but the description omits any explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 and front-loaded: it states the purpose and use-case in two short sentences, with a helpful analogy and sibling reference. Zero fluff.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (before modifying a part to see impact) and identifies the inverse sibling. The only gap is that it does not mention the default depth or that it is bounded, which is available in the schema, so minor. Overall sufficient for the agent to decide when to call it.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the notion of 'any level' which actually conflicts with the schema's max depth of 10. This is a slight inconsistency, reducing clarity. Since schema covers the parameters well, the description adds little.

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 verb ('risale' – climbs/traverses), the resource (BOM/assemblies), and the specific behavior (finds ALL assemblies that use a component at any level). It also distinguishes it from aras_get_bom as its inverse, making selection unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear use case with a concrete example ('if I change this screw, what do I impact?') and explicitly positions it as the inverse of aras_get_bom. It doesn't give a formal decision rule for when to pick this tool over alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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