protokoll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, the default limit of 50, retention window, or result size.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the resource and ordering first. But the terseness tips into under-specification rather than efficiency; the fragment style leaves the agent to guess at semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Still, a 3-parameter tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage deserves more than one fragment — the limit parameter and the overall read semantics are undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for two of three parameters ("seit" is an ISO date/time bound, "stichwort" is a text filter), but "limit" is never mentioned, leaving the truncation behavior opaque.

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 ("Box-Protokoll") and its ordering ("neueste zuerst"), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like dsl_status or anrufliste. However, there is no verb — it never says it lists or returns log entries — so the purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling status tools. The agent must infer that this is the router event log rather than a device or call log.

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