Definition eines Führungsbegriffs aus Zukunft führen (BANI, Polykrise, psychologische Sicherheit). Gibt Definition, Herkunft und Kapitelverweis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| begriff | No | z. B. bani, polykrise, psychologische-sicherheit. Leer = alle. |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: BANI model explanation, experiment status, glossary definition, chapter overview, and emergency impulse. Only minor overlap between BANI explanation and glossary if both cover BANI, but they are structured differently.
All tool names follow snake_case and use descriptive compound nouns (e.g., 'bani_einordnung', 'notfall_griff'). While not verb_noun, the pattern is consistent and predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a specialized leadership agent, covering core functionalities without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers definitions, model explanation, chapter navigation, and acute situation help, but lacks a general question-answering or coaching tool, leaving a notable gap for broader leadership support.