sicherung probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that it writes into the Akte, creates and deletes a temp folder, verifies checksums, leaves the Mappe untouched, and requires user confirmation. The distinction between the written Akte and the untouched Mappe is useful, though the exact nature of the write could be sharper.

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 critical mutation warning ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') is front-loaded, and the sequence of operations is described compactly. Slightly dense with some overlapping clauses, but no wasteful padding.

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 usefully explains the return semantics ('bestanden' for archive completeness, 'aktenfehler' for data-model violations), which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It is nearly complete, though a bit more on what the Akte write records would close the 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%, so both parameters (archiv, bestaetigt) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the confirmation workflow around bestaetigt and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: a restore probe that unpacks the last backup into a temp folder, verifies records against the schema and files against checksums, then removes the temp folder. This is unmistakably distinct from sicherung_erstellen and other siblings.

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?

It states the key precondition clearly – only run with bestaetigt=true after asking the user – which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs for a mutating tool. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not, so it falls short of a 5.

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