Dokumentabschnitt

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the prerequisite that the document must already be open in the RIS document viewer, and it clarifies that this tool is not for standalone use. This goes beyond the basic annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second provides usage guidance and an alternative. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 an output schema, so return values are already structured. The description covers the essential operational context: what it does, when to use it (viewer widget), the prerequisite (open document), and the alternative for full text. Given the tool's simplicity and rich schema, the description is 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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage (all three parameters have clear descriptions, including the `offset` semantics). The tool description itself does not add further parameter details, but it does not need to since the schema is exhaustive. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool returns "one section of a document already open in the RIS document viewer," specifying the verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `ris_dokument` by explicitly noting that the full text should use `ris_dokument` instead.

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 explicitly says the tool is "intended for the viewer widget, not for direct use" and directs users to `ris_dokument` for the full text. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative, making it easy for an agent to choose correctly.

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