Check the e-rechnung engine health: KoSIT + Mustang daemon status and dependency version pins vs. latest releases. Use before bulk invoice generation to confirm the compliance gate is fully operational.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what is checked (health, status, version pins vs. latest) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects. Adding 'read-only' would improve transparency.
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: first defines purpose, second gives usage context. No redundant words, perfectly front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. Tool is simple with no parameters, and usage context is sufficient. Could mention that it does not modify state, but overall 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?
Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool checks e-rechnung engine health, specifically KoSIT + Mustang daemon status and dependency version pins. It distinguishes from sibling tools generate_einvoice and validate_einvoice by being a pre-check operation.
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?
Explicitly advises use before bulk invoice generation to confirm compliance gate is operational. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear given siblings. A score of 4 reflects good guidance without exclusions.
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 targets a distinct operation: health check, invoice generation, and invoice validation. No overlap in functionality or ambiguity.
Tools follow a lowercase snake_case pattern, but 'compliance_status' is a noun phrase while the other two use verb_noun structure. Slight inconsistency but still predictable and readable.
Three tools is well-scoped for the focused domain of German e-invoice generation and validation. Neither too few nor excessive.
Covers the full workflow: readiness check, invoice creation with verification, and validation of existing invoices. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.