katalog_holen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the network side effect, the local-directory destination, and the no-guessing behavior when quelle.art='keine', including the geholt=false result and reason. It does not mention all possible side effects like directory creation or overwriting, but adds meaningful behavioral context.

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: it states the purpose, the allowed catalog values, the network-access constraint, and the special failure case in a single dense sentence. Every clause contributes useful information without repetition.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main invocation context, the critical network-vs-setup distinction, and one important edge case. It does not describe the successful return shape or the exact default destination, but it provides enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 approximately 50% because ziel has a description but name only has an enum. The description adds the mapping between catalog names and the enum values, and clarifies that the target is a local directory. However, it does not explain the actual default for ziel or further detail the meaning of each parameter.

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 ('Holt') and identifies the resource ('einen der von einrichtung_starten vorgeschlagenen Kataloge') with explicit catalog names (bsi, nasa-llis, wcag). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling einrichtung_starten by stating that network access happens here and not there.

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 explicitly says network access is done only here and never via einrichtung_starten itself, giving a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instruction. This effectively routes the agent to the correct tool for downloading catalogs.

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