traeger_detailsZeigt, welche Argumente ein Traeger erwartet, welche Orte als Beispiel hinterlegt sind und wo sein Portal liegt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| traeger_id | Yes | ID aus `finde_traeger`. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation and adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information the agent can expect: expected arguments, example locations, and portal location. This is especially valuable since there is no output schema describing the return payload.
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?
The description is one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and enumerates the three concrete output aspects without filler. Every part of the 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?
For a simple, one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description conveys what the tool does and what the agent can learn from it. It does not explain domain context around 'Traeger' or explicitly state call sequencing, but the parameter description partially covers the latter.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, traeger_id, including its type and origin ('ID aus finde_traeger'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Zeigt') and clearly names the resource ('Traeger') and the three types of information returned: expected arguments, example locations, and portal location. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like finde_traeger or abfuhrtermine, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.
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 the tool is used to inspect details about a specific Traeger, and the parameter schema reinforces this by stating the ID comes from 'finde_traeger', suggesting a follow-up call. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion conditions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: coverage stats, address-based collection dates, carrier-based collection dates, carrier search, and carrier details. However, `abfuhrtermine` and `abfuhrtermine_fuer_traeger` could be confused at first glance, though their descriptions do clarify the difference.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use plain nouns (`abdeckung`, `abfuhrtermine`, `traeger_details`), one uses an imperative verb (`finde_traeger`), and one uses a long compound with `fuer` (`abfuhrtermine_fuer_traeger`). There is no unified verb_noun or noun-only pattern across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for a waste collection calendar server. Each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow: coverage overview, address lookup, direct carrier queries, carrier discovery, and carrier metadata.
The tool set covers the core user journey well: find a carrier, get collection dates, and inspect carrier details. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit bulk or calendar-download functionality, but for the stated purpose the surface is largely complete.