get_guideLiefert den vollstaendigen Text eines Ratgeber-Artikels (per ID oder URL-Slug) als Klartext, damit die KI damit fundiert beraten kann.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ratgeber_id (aus search_guides). | |
| url | No | URL-Slug des Artikels (Alternative zur id). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the output is plain text and complete, but does not disclose that it is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but minimal.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or verbosity.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no complex behavior), the description covers the essential function and input options. It could mention the output format (e.g., 'returns full text as plain string') but is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that identification is by ID or URL slug. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.
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 verb ('liefert'), resource ('vollstaendigen Text eines Ratgeber-Artikels'), and identification methods (ID or URL-Slug). It distinguishes itself from search_guides by implying this tool retrieves full content after finding an ID.
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 usage when the KI needs full text for consultation, and the sibling search_guides suggests a natural workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_guides for initial lookup.
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.