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.