search_guidesDurchsucht den Tabak-Brucker Ratgeber/Blog (Anleitungen, Kaufberatung, Pflege, Wissen). Ideal, um Kundenfragen mit den Inhalten des Shops zu beantworten. Ohne query = neueste Beitraege.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max. Treffer (1-20, Default 8). | |
| query | No | Suchbegriff/Thema (z.B. 'Pfeife stopfen', 'Einsteiger', 'Lagerung'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description clearly indicates a read-only search operation. It explains behavior when query is omitted (returns latest posts). No contradictions noted.
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, front-loaded with purpose and scope. Every sentence adds important information. No wasted words.
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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It defines the source, the use case, and the query behavior. Could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but it's sufficient.
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 descriptions are complete (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the effect of omitting the query parameter ('Ohne query = neueste Beitraege'), which is not in 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?
The description clearly states it searches the 'Tabak-Brucker Ratgeber/Blog' for guides, buying advice, care, and knowledge. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products by specifying the content domain.
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 states it is ideal for answering customer questions with shop content. Implicitly differentiates from get_guide (likely for a single guide) and search_products. Does not explicitly list alternatives but provides clear context.
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.