wartungsvertrag_ansehenZeigt einen Wartungsvertrag ausführlich: Rhythmus, nächste Fälligkeit, Objektanschrift, Anlage, Zuständige, Erinnerungsstufen — und die bereits daraus entstandenen Aufträge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vertrag_id | Yes | Die Kennung des Wartungsvertrags. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what fields are returned and noting that it includes orders that have already arisen from the contract, which is not evident from annotations alone. No contradictions with 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 uses a colon to efficiently list the included details. Every element earns its place, 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it enumerates the key fields returned and alerts the user that generated orders are included. It does not describe the return format or error behavior, but these are less critical for a simple read-only view, so the minor gap is acceptable.
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 input schema has 100% coverage: vertrag_id is described as 'Die Kennung des Wartungsvertrags.' The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema already handles the semantic burden.
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 it shows ('Zeigt') a maintenance contract in detail and enumerates specific fields (Rhythmus, nächste Fälligkeit, Objektanschrift, Anlage, Zuständige, Erinnerungsstufen) plus derived orders. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like wartungsvertraege_suchen (search) and wartungsvertrag_aendern (edit).
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—when you need full details of a single contract, this is the view tool—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wartungsvertraege_suchen. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned, relying on the tool name and context to convey positioning.
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.