geraet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly signals a read-only lookup and names the fields returned, but says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity), behavior on zero matches, or any permission requirements. Adequate for a low-risk read, but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the question establishes intent, the colon list enumerates search keys and result fields. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 lookup with an output schema (so return structure needn't be explained), the description covers intent, accepted input formats and a hint at returned fields. The remaining gap is match semantics and not-found behavior, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 0% and the single parameter 'suche' is an undocumented string. The description compensates well by defining the accepted value space: name, IP address, or MAC address. It stops short of stating whether partial or fuzzy matches are accepted.

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 question ('Wo hängt ein Gerät?') and the lookup keys (Name, IP, MAC) plus what is returned (Zugangspunkt, Band, Signal, Raten). That is a concrete verb+resource pair an agent can act on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'hosts', which likely also enumerates devices, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the question form: use this when you need to locate a specific device on the network. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of 'hosts', 'wlan_status' or 'mesh_uebersicht' as alternatives for listing or checking connectivity.

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