bestand abgleichen

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

Annotation readOnlyHint=false is echoed and enriched: the description details exactly what mutates (new files in 01-08 get an identifier, Finder-moved files are re-found via checksum, missing ordering details are added) and imposes a mandatory confirmation gate. It goes well beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe reversibility or the response shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE' warning, then the operation, then the gating rule. Dense but every clause carries information; only the enumeration of three mutation types makes it slightly long.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what changes and the confirmation requirement, which is what an agent needs before invoking a write tool. Coverage is strong for a 2-parameter tool, with only the meaning of the required 'fall' parameter left partly implicit.

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 only 50%: 'bestaetigt' is fully documented in the schema, but 'fall' has no description. The description implies fall is the case being reconciled and reinforces the bestaetigt gate indirectly, but it does not fully compensate for the undocumented required parameter. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Bestand eines Falls mit den Dateien abgleichen' (reconcile the case inventory against the files). It is distinguishably different from the sibling bestand_pruefen, and the claim 'Der einzige Weg, auf dem neue Dateien registriert werden' further pins down its unique role.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition ('Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer') and states this is the single path for registering new files, which routes the agent away from pure check tools. It does not explicitly say when to prefer bestand_pruefen instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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