zeiten_auswertenFasst die erfassten Arbeitszeiten eines Zeitraums zusammen — je Mitarbeiter die Summe der Stunden und die Zahl der erfassten Tage. Nennt auch Tage, an denen das Ausstempeln fehlt, denn die zählen nirgends mit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bis | Yes | Letzter Tag, JJJJ-MM-TT. | |
| von | Yes | Erster Tag, JJJJ-MM-TT. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral nuance by noting that days with missing clock-out are also listed and do not count, which goes beyond 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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second adds an important caveat about missing clock-outs. No filler words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the input (period), the output (per-employee sums, day counts, missing clock-out days), and a data quality note. It does not describe sort order or exact JSON structure, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete.
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?
Both parameters 'von' and 'bis' are fully described in the schema with date format descriptions. The tool description only references 'eines Zeitraums', confirming the period but adding no extra semantics. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Fasst zusammen' with the resource 'erfassten Arbeitszeiten eines Zeitraums' and details the output per employee. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mitarbeiter_auflisten' by focusing on summarizing time records.
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 a summary of working hours for a period is needed, giving clear context. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but no direct sibling for this task exists among the listed tools, so the implied guidance is sufficient.
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.