knowledge_anmelden

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers richly: the PIN is one-time, issued by an authorized human, the secret is returned exactly once, it is never logged, and this is the only tool callable without a credential. These are important security-relevant behaviors well beyond any schema information.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the security rationale, and the critical restriction about credential-less invocation comes last. Every sentence contributes useful, non-redundant information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when it is usable, how the PIN is obtained, what the caller receives, and how the secret is handled. No important operational gap remains.

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 input schema already covers the parameter purpose ('the one-time PIN you were given'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the PIN is an invitation code issued by a human, is one-time, and counts as proof of human handover, which helps the agent understand the trust semantics of the 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 states a specific verb ('Redeem'), a specific resource ('one-time invitation PIN'), and the outcome ('receive your own credential'). It also distinguishes this tool by noting it is the only one callable without a credential, setting it apart from all sibling tools.

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 is clear that this tool is for the sign-in scenario where the caller has no credential yet. It also implies a when-not-to-use condition: any other tool should not be used before this one in this state. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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