auftrag_ansehenZeigt einen einzelnen Auftrag ausführlich: Beschreibung, Termin, Ort, Kunde, zugewiesene Mitarbeiter und die zugehörigen Rechnungen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auftrag_id | Yes | Die Kennung des Auftrags. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the term 'Zeigt'. It adds value beyond annotations by listing the exact fields returned, which is especially helpful since no output schema is present. No contradictions with annotations found.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and key content. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple view-detail tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It details what information will be shown and implies the need for an order ID. Minor omissions like prerequisites (e.g., the order must exist) are implicit and not critical.
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 100% because the only parameter 'auftrag_id' is described as 'Die Kennung des Auftrags.' The description does not add any additional detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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's function: "Zeigt einen einzelnen Auftrag ausführlich" (shows a single order in detail), and enumerates the specific data displayed (description, date, location, customer, assigned employees, invoices). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'auftraege_suchen' (search orders) and 'auftrag_aendern' (change order).
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 defines a clear context: use when you need detailed information about a specific order, particularly given the singular focus and the requirement of an auftrag_id. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as for searching across multiple orders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool name clearly identifies a distinct resource (Angebot, Auftrag, Rechnung, Material, etc.) and action. Even potentially similar pairs like material_buchen and material_zuweisen are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent resource_action pattern in lowercase with underscores (e.g., kunde_anlegen, material_suchen). A few status/query tools like betrieb_ueberblick and datei_stand use noun compounds, but these are consistently used for state queries and do not break the overall convention.
With 23 tools, the server falls into the 'heavy' range of 16-25. While the breadth of a handwerker management system justifies many operations, the count is high and some areas (like customer management) are underrepresented, making the set feel larger than necessary.
The core order-to-invoice workflow is well covered, but there are notable gaps: no customer search or update, no conversion from Angebot to Rechnung, and no ability to change order status. These are significant omissions that agents must work around, even though the descriptions clearly state these limitations.