elster_form_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several important behaviors: it returns the Startseite contents, falls back to the newest draft, re-enters an already-open form instead of failing, and enforces a one-form-open constraint. It does not cover error handling, permissions, or session prerequisites.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with the core action and return value front-loaded, followed by fallback and state-management details. Every sentence adds distinct information and none is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, the optional-parameter fallback, re-entry behavior, and the one-open-form constraint, and it sketches the return payload. Minor gaps remain around error cases and session prerequisites, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining what happens when aufgabeId is omitted (the newest draft is opened), which is not evident from the parameter definition alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('Opens') and resource ('saved draft in the engine session'), and even summarizes the return payload (Startseite fields, repeat groups, navigation RIDs). It implicitly distinguishes itself from elster_form_new (new form) and elster_drafts_list (listing drafts), but does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

Provides clear context for the optional aufgabeId parameter (newest draft opened when omitted) and explains the re-entry behavior when a form is already open. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like elster_form_new, but the saved-draft focus and the parameter description 'From elster_drafts_list' make the intended usage clear.

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