IDM Verbindungstest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact values read (Außentemperatur, Betriebsart, Summenstörung) and the return format (JSON object with connection status), enriching the behavioral profile without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, operational details, and return format with no redundant content. The mixed German/English is minor and does not detracts from clarity; every sentence earns its place.

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, strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema already present, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it reads, and what it returns. It fully equips an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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, and the input schema is empty. The description therefore does not need to explain parameters; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. It correctly avoids inventing parameter information.

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 opens with 'Prüft die Modbus-TCP-Verbindung zur IDM Wärmepumpe', which clearly states the action (checks connection) and the target resource. It explicitly frames the reads of specific values as a connection test, distinguishing it from sibling getter/setter tools that focus on specific data domains.

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 phrase 'als Verbindungstest' explicitly indicates the intended use is to verify connectivity to the heat pump. While it does not name alternatives such as idm_get_system_status or suggest when not to use it, the sibling list makes its unique diagnostic role apparent, providing clear context without exclusions.

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