list_servicesListet alle buchbaren Zusatzservices (z.B. Catering, Moderation, Workshop-Begleitung) mit Standardpreisen. Services mit isAccompaniment: true sind exklusive Begleitformate (max. eines pro Buchung) und können einen Raum-Rabatt auslösen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral info: services with isAccompaniment are exclusive and can trigger discounts. No destructive or auth details are needed for a read-only list tool.
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 short front-loaded sentences, each essential. No wasted words.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and a key behavioral constraint. It could mention pagination or order, but not necessary for a simple list.
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?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the isAccompaniment field and its implications, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.
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 lists bookable additional services with examples (Catering, Moderation, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rooms. The verb 'Listet' and resource 'Zusatzservices' are specific.
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?
While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, the purpose is so clear that usage context is evident. The description implies use when a list of services is needed, and siblings like check_availability or create_booking cover different actions.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: checking availability, listing rooms, listing services, quoting, creating binding bookings, and requesting non-binding bookings. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_availability, list_rooms), making them predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a room booking system—enough to cover key operations without being excessive.
Covers all major booking creation steps (list, check, quote, book), but lacks tools for updating or canceling existing bookings, which is a minor gap.