bestand_pruefenCompare checksums of all registered case files against the initial snapshot to detect changed, missing, or moved files without writing any changes.
Prüfsummen aller registrierten Dateien eines Falls mit dem ersten Stand vergleichen; meldet auch nicht erfasste und verschobene Dateien. Schreibt nichts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fall | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it reports unrecorded and moved files, but 'Schreibt nichts' largely restates readOnlyHint and no further behavior (permissions, timing, scope details) is disclosed.
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 two tightly packed clauses that front-load the core action (checksum comparison) and append the reporting behavior and safety note. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.
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 simple read-only integrity check with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers what the tool does and what it reports. The main gap is the missing parameter format for 'fall', but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 for the single required 'fall' parameter. It only implicitly links the operation to a case ('eines Falls') without explaining expected format, identifier type, or how the case is supplied, leaving the parameter largely undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: comparing checksums of a case's registered files against the initial state, and reporting unregistered/moved files. It clearly defines scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling bestand_abgleichen, leaving a small ambiguity for the agent.
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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as bestand_abgleichen. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended contexts, or exclusions; the agent must infer usage conditions from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.