leadership-agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool explains a model (likely read-only), but does not mention side effects, safety, or limitations. Basic transparency is achieved but no extra context.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and content. It could mention the return format or that it's informational, but completeness is adequate.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but this is acceptable since no parameters exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 explains the BANI model, its four dimensions, leadership consequences, and chapter references. It specifies a specific resource and verb, distinguishing it from siblings like glossar or kapitel_these.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any contextual cues for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description is only a single phrase. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the status data is cached or live. The description does not add value beyond a minimal statement of purpose.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriate for a tool with no parameters and a simple action.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description minimally states the purpose. However, it lacks details about what the status output contains (e.g., a timestamp, a state enum, or a narrative). This is adequate for a simple indicator but incomplete for an agent expecting a structured response.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly confirms that no parameters are needed, which is adequate. No additional semantics are required since there are no inputs to explain.

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 returns the current status of a specific public AI marketing experiment, using a noun phrase that implies retrieval. The resource is uniquely identified (KI-Marketing-Experiment), distinguishing it from siblings which cover different concepts (Banai classification, glossary, etc.). However, the verb is implicit and could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the siblings have different purposes, the description does not mention any exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains the output (definition, origin, chapter reference) and hints at behavior (empty parameter returns all). With no annotations, it carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it could explicitly state that it is a read-only operation.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose and requirements. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise.

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 simplicity of a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of whether multiple results are returned when empty, but this is addressed in the parameter description.

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%, and the parameter description already includes examples and the 'empty = all' behavior. The tool description does not add extra semantic context beyond the schema's documentation.

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 the tool defines a leadership concept from a specific book ('Zukunft führen'), providing definition, origin, and chapter reference. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bani_einordnung' or 'kapitel_these', which serve different purposes.

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 for looking up a single term but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, although the single optional parameter makes usage somewhat intuitive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the output format (title and act) without any mention of side effects, permission requirements, or limitations. The description does not indicate whether the tool is read-only or if it triggers any actions.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the resource name and count. It avoids unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return content when a chapter number is provided and implies the full list when empty. However, it could be more explicit about the default behavior and whether the output is ordered.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'kapitel' (optional number 1-24, empty = overview). The description adds minimal extra meaning by noting that when a chapter number is given, it returns title and act. This does not exceed the schema's description, so a baseline score of 3 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 provides a chapter overview of 'Zukunft führen' with 24 chapters and 4 acts, and specifies that it returns chapter number, title, and act. The verb 'Kapitelübersicht' implies a listing/overview function, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'glossar' or 'experiment_status' by resource specificity.

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 usage is implied: use this tool to get an overview of chapters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. The context of sibling tools suggests potential overlap, but no guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a short impulse with chapter reference, suggesting a read-only action, but provides no details on side effects, permissions, or return structure.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and context. It is front-loaded and lacks filler, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the tool's nature (short impulse), target situation, and mentions chapter reference as part of the output.

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% with a clear description of the parameter 'thema' including examples. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond 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 is a short impulse ('Kurzimpuls') for acute leadership situations, with chapter reference. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (classification, status, glossary, thesis) which are not emergency-oriented.

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 use for acute leadership situations ('akute Führungssituation'), but does not explicitly state when to use or not use, nor list alternatives. Usage is implied but not guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.