einrichtung_starten

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it promises no mutation on argument-less calls, spells out the confirmed=true requirement on non-empty inventories, and explains that catalogs are imported as 'nachschlagewerk' without diluting hit rates. Minor gaps remain around exact write behavior when setup does run and around error reporting.

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 dense and mostly front-loaded, with no wasted sentences: the safety-critical no-argument behavior comes first, followed by the confirmed=true guard and catalog semantics. The first sentence is long and dash-heavy, which slightly reduces readability, but 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: safe invocation mode, state-dependent behavior, the confirmed=true prerequisite, and catalog handling. It does not specify the exact return format or error behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by grouping parameters into the four wizard questions and by adding the non-obvious behavioral effect of catalogs on retrieval quality. It also maps 'language' to 'Sprache des eigenen Materials' and 'profile' to the einzelplatz/unternehmen choice.

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 identifies the tool as a first-start assistant (BDW-P11) and explains its core behavior: without arguments it delivers only the current situation and four questions, and changes nothing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, so it misses the highest bar for differentiation.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: no arguments yields a read-only prompt; on an empty inventory answers may run immediately; on a grown or already configured inventory nothing changes unless confirmed=true. This is clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer another sibling.

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