Vetofix – Hilfe zur Praxissoftware für Tierarzt-Hausbesuche

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only supply the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds the non-obvious interaction protocol — a first call returns CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED with summary and token, and only a second call with confirmed=true plus that token actually persists. That is essential behavior not derivable from structured fields.

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 sentences: purpose first, then the confirmation handshake. No filler, fully 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?

For a write tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers what an agent must know — that this is a gated two-phase write and what the first call returns. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by linking confirmed=true and confirmation_token into a coherent gated-write workflow that the schema documents only as separate fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (creates a support ticket) and it is the only mutating tool among read-only siblings like get_faq and search_help, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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 makes the trigger condition explicit ('nach ausdrücklicher Bestätigung') and describes the two-step flow, giving clear context for invocation. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling overlaps in function, so this is minor.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Die Annotationen decken bereits readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive und closed-world ab. Die Beschreibung ergänzt, dass Einträge den aktuellen Stand pro Eintrag widerspiegeln und keine Zusagen zu künftigen Funktionen gemacht werden – nützliche Verhaltens- und Scope-Informationen jenseits der Annotationen.

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?

Zwei knappe Sätze, front-loaded mit Zweck und Scope, ohne Füllmaterial. Jeder Satz trägt eine relevante Information bei.

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?

Für ein einfaches Read-Tool mit vollständigem Schema, Annotationen und Output-Schema ist die Beschreibung ausreichend: Zweck, zeitlicher Bezug und Abgrenzung zu Zukunftszusagen sind vorhanden. Es fehlt lediglich eine explizite Abgrenzung zu den Schwester-Tools.

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?

Die Schema-Beschreibungsabdeckung liegt bei 100 %, und der einzige optionale Parameter (language) ist dort vollständig mit Enum und Default dokumentiert. Die Beschreibung ergänzt keine Parametervalidierung oder Formathinweise, daher ist der Baseline-Wert 3 angemessen.

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?

Die Beschreibung nennt ein spezifisches Verb ("Listet") und eine spezifische Ressource ("Grenzen von Vetofix") sowie den Scope ("ausdrücklich dokumentierten", "Stand je Eintrag"). Sie grenzt sich inhaltlich von Feature- oder FAQ-Tools ab, benennt aber keine Schwester-Tools explizit.

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?

Die Nutzung wird implizit klar: Das Tool ruft dokumentierte Grenzen ab. Der Zusatz "Keine Zusagen zu künftigen Funktionen" schließt eine Fehlnutzung für Roadmap-Fragen aus, aber es fehlen explizite When-to-use-Hinweise oder Alternativen wie get_faq oder get_product_feature.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the response includes source, article ID, and date, and unknown topics produce NOT_FOUND.

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 concise sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the error behavior.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with a complete schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and error case. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters are documented with enums. The description adds only the fixed-topic scope and NOT_FOUND condition, but no additional syntax or semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it delivers the approved answer for a fixed FAQ topic. The fixed-topic scope and NOT_FOUND behavior distinguish it from open search tools like search_help, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 fixed-topic scope implies it should be used only for the enumerated FAQ topics, and unknown topics return NOT_FOUND. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_help or other help tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds real value beyond them: it commits to returning only documented limits and never fabricating content, and it specifies the NOT_FOUND outcome for undocumented features — a concrete behavioral guarantee the annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the no-fabrication guarantee front-loaded. Every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the one non-obvious behavior (NOT_FOUND on undocumented features). It is nearly complete, though it never routes the agent to sibling tools for adjacent needs.

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 100%, with enum values and a default already documented for audience and language. The description only restates audience scoping and adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Erklärt") and resource ("Vetofix-Funktion") scoped to a target audience, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_faq or search_help. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself against those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it to explain a named feature to one of three audiences, and the NOT_FOUND note signals that only documented features are valid input. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_faq/get_troubleshooting_guide/search_help guidance or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: it never recommends data deletion, and it escalates to support on data-loss indications, telling the agent what output to expect in that case.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then the no-deletion guarantee, then the escalation rule. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant content 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the safety plus escalation behavior is covered. Only sibling differentiation and explicit routing guidance are missing, which is a minor gap for a read-only guide tool.

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 100%; all four parameters (problem, context, language, platform) are documented in the schema, including the language enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (liefert) and resource (nummerierte kurze Schritte aus freigegebenen Artikeln), so an agent knows it produces step-by-step repair guidance. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_faq or search_help, which could also surface help content.

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?

Usage is implied: it is the tool to call for a problem in need of troubleshooting steps. It adds one concrete exclusion rule (data-loss signs trigger an immediate support referral rather than steps), but names no alternative tool to route to, so the when-to-use guidance is incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the corpus is the approved/released KB and that results are relevance-sorted; return format details (source, article ID) are largely redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, resource, scope, result shape and sort order with no filler. Slightly dense but nothing wasteful; it could have used a second short sentence for sibling routing without harming brevity.

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?

With rich annotations, a complete output schema and 100% parameter description coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and result character, which it does. The one gap is the absence of routing guidance against five closely related sibling tools.

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 100% and every parameter (query, limit, category, language) carries its own schema description, including defaults and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as query syntax, category semantics or language fallback behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (durchsucht) and resource (freigegebene Vetofix-Wissensbasis) and enumerates the content types covered (FAQ, Funktionen, Grenzen), so an agent knows it is a broad KB search. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_faq or get_product_feature, which look like targeted single-type lookups.

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?

Usage is only implied: by naming FAQ, features and limitations as covered, the description hints this is a superset search rather than a targeted fetch. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or guidance on choosing it over get_faq, get_product_feature, get_troubleshooting_guide or get_current_limitations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.