material_ansehenZeigt einen Katalogartikel mit Preis, Bestand, Lagerort und den letzten Bestandsbewegungen — also woher der aktuelle Bestand kommt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| material_id | Yes | Die Kennung des Artikels. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the data fields shown (e.g., price, stock, location, and where stock comes from), but it doesn't disclose error handling, not-found behavior, or authorization requirements, which are not covered by annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Zeigt') and resource ('Katalogartikel'), then lists the data scope. Every part contributes, with no filler or redundancy.
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 read-only view tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the key output fields (price, stock, location, stock movements). Without an output schema, it could be more explicit about the structure or extent of movements, but the description is largely sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions: material_id is described as 'Die Kennung des Artikels.' The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond reinforcing that the tool views a catalog item by that identifier. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 uses the specific verb 'Zeigt' (shows) and clearly identifies the resource as a catalog article, listing the key data fields (price, stock, location, and stock movements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like material_suchen (search) and material_buchen (book), providing a clear purpose.
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 implies the tool is for viewing a single material's details, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like material_suchen, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied.
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.