IDM Verdichter- und Pumpenstatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description reinforces these by saying 'Liest' and adds specific payload details plus the return type as a JSON string. It does not cover auth/rate limits, but for a no-input read-only getter the added behavioral context is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a structured itemized list of returned values. Minor redundancy between the 'Liefert' list and the 'Returns' line prevents a perfect score, but overall it is efficient and well organized.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, the description provides complete context for selecting and invoking the tool. It explicitly lists all relevant status categories—compressors, pumps, and switching valves—making the tool's coverage clear without needing to explain return values thanks to the existing output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the empty input schema aligns with the no-input behavior, requiring no additional semantic explanation.

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 'Liest den Status' and enumerates exact items (compressors 1–4, pumps M15/M16/M17/M84, valves M61–M99), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as temperature or hot water status tools. The title and description consistently identify the resource domain as compressor/pump status.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative sibling tools are named. The description implies usage for compressor/pump status by listing the returned data, but it does not clarify boundaries relative to broader status tools like idm_get_system_status.

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