prompt_invarianz_pruefen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool checks something, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, how threshold or high_risk influence behavior, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, compact sentence with no filler words and the main verb placed upfront. It is efficient and easy to parse, though the lack of supporting detail limits its overall usefulness.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what constitutes a valid run, what the stability check returns, or whether any permissions or prerequisites are needed. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or make assumptions to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It offers some semantic signal by linking 'Vergleichslaeufe' to the 'runs' parameter and 'evidenzbelegt' to the required 'evidence' field, but it says nothing about 'high_risk' or 'threshold'. These parameters remain essentially undocumented from a behavioral standpoint.

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 names a specific verb ('Prueft') and a specific resource ('evidenzbelegte Vergleichslaeufe'), and specifies what is being tested ('Stabilitaet und Reihenfolgeeffekte'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'prompt_invarianz_planen', which is about planning rather than checking invariance.

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 implies when to use the tool: when evidence-backed comparison runs need to be checked for stability and order effects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as 'prompt_invarianz_planen', leaving the usage guidance largely implicit.

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