contact_supportLeitet eine Kundenanfrage als Ticket an das Team weiter. Erfordert eine gueltige E-Mail fuer die Rueckmeldung.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name (optional). | |
| Yes | Gueltige E-Mail fuer die Rueckmeldung. | ||
| thema | No | Betreff (optional). | |
| nachricht | Yes | Die Anfrage/Nachricht. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the core action (forwarding a ticket) and a requirement, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs.
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 that front-load the action. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.
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 tool with high schema coverage, the description is adequate. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens after submission (e.g., ticket created), but it still enables correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats that email is required for feedback, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions already present.
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 that it forwards a customer inquiry as a ticket to the team, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as none others relate to contacting support.
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 mentions a prerequisite (valid email for feedback) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or any context about when not to use it.
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 function: inventory checks, cart creation, product search, order management, loyalty, support. No overlap among search_products, list_products, and get_product; similarly, list_orders and request_address_change are unique.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_availability, create_cart, link_account) with consistent snake_case and English verbs, even though the shop is German. No mix of conventions.
19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range for a focused server, but the number is justified by the breadth of shop functionality (product browsing, orders, cart, loyalty, guides, support). Not excessive.
Covers core shopping flows: product discovery, cart creation, order tracking, and account linking. However, missing tools for cart modification (add/remove items), order cancellation/returns, and checkout. These gaps may cause agent failures.