publikationenForschungsschwerpunkte (Semantic Web, Schema.org, strukturierte Produktdaten für E-Commerce), repräsentative Publikationen, entwickelte Werkzeuge wie der RDF Translator sowie die Verzeichnisse mit der vollständigen Publikationsliste.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 context about the content (e.g., RDF Translator, publication list) but does not disclose return format or any additional behavioral details, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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 sentence that efficiently lists key topics without redundancy. It is somewhat dense but remains readable and front-loads the main subject.
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 parameter-free informational tool, the description adequately covers the scope of content (research areas, publications, tools, directories). It does not specify the response format or whether it returns a list of publications, but the title and annotations make the intent sufficiently clear.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds contextual value by listing the types of content included, but there are no parameter details to explain.
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 identifies the tool's subject matter (research foci, publications, developed tools, directories) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by topic. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'displays', so the action is implied rather than stated.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'website_durchsuchen' or 'profil'. The intended usage is only implied by the content focus on publications and research.
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.
All seven tools have clearly distinct purposes: FAQ, content retrieval, contact, profile, publications, focus areas, and site search. Even though 'website_durchsuchen' and 'inhalt_abrufen' both touch content, their functions are complementary and well-described, so an agent can easily choose correctly.
Tool names mix noun forms (faq, kontakt, profil, publikationen, schwerpunkte) with verb-noun compounds (inhalt_abrufen, website_durchsuchen). This inconsistency breaks a predictable verb_noun pattern, but the German names remain descriptive and readable.
With 7 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a personal consulting website. Each tool serves a meaningful purpose and none feels redundant or excessive; the count aligns with the domain's needs.
The tool set covers all major aspects of the consultant's site: profile, expertise areas, publications, FAQ, contact, and full-text search. There are no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of user queries, and the search tool acts as an effective entry point to find any missing details.