Megnézi, van-e a megadott mérethez közeli RAKTÁRON lévő szabvány nyílászáró (gyorsabb, olcsóbb opció). Checks ready-stock standard windows/doors matching a size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| width_cm | Yes | ||
| height_cm | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It does not disclose what 'close to the given size' means, what happens if no match, or any side effects/permissions. Minimal behavioral context.
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 concise (two sentences, bilingual) and front-loaded. However, the bilingual repetition is slightly redundant. Still efficient overall.
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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, or the meaning of 'close'. Does not provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool properly.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The description only says 'matching a size' but does not explain the specific parameters (type, width_cm, height_cm) or their role. Fails to compensate for missing schema info.
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 checks ready-stock standard windows/doors matching a given size. The verb 'checks' and resource 'ready-stock standard windows/doors' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'get_price_estimate' or 'list_inventory'.
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 this is for quick/cheap standard options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_price_estimate' or 'list_inventory'. No when-not or exclusions provided.
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.
Tools mostly target distinct operations, but check_stock and list_inventory both relate to ready-stock items, which could cause minor confusion. Descriptions clarify the difference (specific size vs. full listing), but the overlap is noticeable.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., check_stock, request_quote). The verb choice is varied but appropriate for each action, and no naming style deviations exist.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—handling stock inquiries, price estimates, and quote requests. No tool feels redundant or missing for the core workflow.
The tool set covers pre-sales actions (stock check, inventory, price estimate, quote request, confirmation) but lacks any post-quote functionality like order placement, status tracking, or cancellation, leaving an incomplete lifecycle.
