rechnung_ansehenZeigt eine einzelne Rechnung mit Beträgen, Steuer, Zahlungsstand, Mahnstufe und dem zugehörigen Auftrag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rechnung_id | Yes | Die Kennung der Rechnung. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by specifying exactly which data will be shown (amounts, tax, payment status, dunning level, associated order). While it does not cover error cases, the strong annotations reduce the burden, and this field list sets clear expectations for the return content.
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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. There is no redundant or extraneous content.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the purpose and the specific fields returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not mention error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations, that is not a critical gap.
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%: the only parameter rechnung_id is described as 'Die Kennung der Rechnung'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'eine einzelne Rechnung' (a single invoice), listing the key fields it returns (amounts, tax, payment status, dunning level, associated order). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rechnung_anlegen' (create) and 'rechnungen_suchen' (search).
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 usage for viewing a single invoice by saying 'einzelne Rechnung', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.
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.