anrufbeantworter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does establish the non-mutating contract via 'Markiert nichts' and enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or what the single parameter controls.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the field list in parentheses; nothing is padded. It is terse to the point of omitting the one parameter, but no wording 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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, which offsets some of its brevity. However, for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented input parameter, more behavioral and parameter context was warranted.

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 one parameter 'ab' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all, so the agent cannot tell whether it is an offset, a mailbox index, or a filter. This is the definition's largest gap given the parameter is optional and defaults to 0.

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?

Names the resource (Anrufbeantworter) and states it returns status plus messages with the concrete fields Zeit, Anrufer, Dauer, neu/gehört. That is specific enough to distinguish it from anrufliste, though it never explicitly rules out the audio sibling anrufbeantworter_audio.

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?

'Markiert nichts' functions as a partial exclusion, hinting at a counterpart that does mark messages as heard, but no sibling is named and no condition for choosing this tool over anrufliste or anrufbeantworter_audio is given. Usage is only implied by the read-only framing.

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