prompt_invarianz_planen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a selection is made, but does not reveal what happens after the selection, whether state is mutated, what the output is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity and lacks any structured detail about parameters or outputs, making it more sparse than appropriately sized.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a bare high-level statement. An agent cannot determine valid values for task_type, the meaning of the boolean flags, or what the tool returns, so the description is far from complete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate at all. It never mentions task_type, risk, or any of the boolean parameters, leaving an agent with no semantic understanding of how to fill them. The only values mentioned (off, light, strong) do not appear in the schema.

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 ('Waehlt' selects) and a resource (off/light/strong for evaluation, ranking, or decision), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like prompt_invarianz_pruefen, nor does it mention the 'planen' (planning) aspect implied by the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools that might be more appropriate.

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