knowledge_sitzung

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it well: it explicitly declares the operation is read-only, states it only lists and never mutates, and adds purposeful context about the evaluation workflow. Minor gaps remain around output shape or size, but core behavioral disclosure is solid.

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-loads the most important behavioral fact ('Read-only'). It packs in scope, purpose, and a key exclusion in one sentence. The parenthetical 'Auftrag 2026-08-06' is slightly opaque but does not harm overall clarity.

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?

The description covers purpose, safe behavior, and the single parameter well. However, with no output schema, an agent is left without a sense of the response structure or whether pagination/limits apply. For a listing tool used in evaluation, this is a moderate gap.

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% and the single parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description reinforces that 'session' identifies the writer, adding mild contextual meaning, but does not materially improve on the schema's own 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 opens with 'Read-only' and states a specific action: 'list every knowledge node and lesson written by one session.' It identifies the scope (session actor/writer) and frames it as the evaluation path for isolating entries, clearly distinguishing it from write/modify tools like knowledge_update and knowledge_zurueckziehen.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool: when evaluating or isolating one writer's entries, e.g. before deciding whether to retract them. It also explicitly says the tool never withdraws or deletes. It does not explicitly name an alternative for other filtering scenarios, but the intended usage context is strong.

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