Der Wenn-es-brennt-Kurzimpuls (Die Lage / Sofort) zu einer akuten Führungssituation, mit Kapitelverweis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thema | No | Stichwort zur Lage, z. B. Team blockiert, Konflikt, Krise, Angst, KI. |
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.
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.