Sonstige Sammlungen durchsuchen

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'search' and describing query examples. It adds behavioral context by specifying the types of collections and providing example parameter combinations, but does not elaborate on pagination or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the purpose and listing applications with short explanations. The example queries add length but are useful for illustrating usage. Overall, it is well-structured and each part contributes value.

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 complexity (32 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of the collections and usage patterns. Examples cover multiple applications. However, it lacks explicit return value details and does not address all edge cases, but is adequate for such a broad tool.

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 the schema fully documents all 32 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only illustrates usage through example queries. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 that the tool searches miscellaneous Austrian legal collections, listing eight distinct applications (PruefGewO, Avsv, etc.) with brief explanations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ris_bundesrecht or ris_landesrecht, which cover specific document types.

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 advises using this tool for 'specialized legal documents and historical materials' and lists applications. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other cases or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the term 'Sonstige' implies that other ris_* tools are for more specific collections. The examples provide practical guidance.

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