datei_standZeigt, welche Dateien angefordert wurden und welche davon angekommen sind. Nach „datei_anfordern" hiermit nachsehen, statt zu raten — und NICHT in kurzen Abständen wiederholt aufrufen: Der Mensch braucht einen Moment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes beyond these by explaining the human processing delay and advising against frequent polling, which is important behavioral context not present in the structured metadata.
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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage timing and a critical warning. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?
Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and a key behavioral caveat. It gives enough context for an agent to know what to expect and how to interact appropriately.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The schema trivially covers all (non-existent) parameters, and the description provides no parameter details because none exist. Baseline 4 applies per guidelines for no-parameter tools.
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 shows which files were requested and which have arrived, using the specific verb 'Zeigt' and resource 'Dateien'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'datei_anfordern' by positioning itself as the post-request check, making its purpose 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?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool after 'datei_anfordern' instead of guessing, and provides a clear exclusion: do not call repeatedly in short intervals because the human needs time. This gives strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing the related workflow.
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.