Dokumentabschnitt

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the tool operates on a document 'already open in the RIS document viewer,' implying a stateful prerequisite. Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive traits, and the description does not contradict them.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of a rich schema and output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when it's intended, and an alternative. It could mention which parameter to use for document identification, but the schema descriptions handle that, so completeness is solid.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter relationships or usage; it relies entirely on the schema, which sufficiently documents each parameter. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 an already-open document, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one section of a document'). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling ris_dokument by noting that ris_dokument is for full text, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: intended for the viewer widget and not for direct use, with a clear alternative for full-text retrieval ('use ris_dokument'). This precisely tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to.

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