zugang_pruefen

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 disclose what is inspected (model, FRITZ!OS, user rights), which signals a non-mutating inspection. However, it says nothing about whether authentication is required, what a failed or insufficient-rights result looks like, or any side effects — the output schema covers the return shape but not the failure semantics.

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 front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler, listing exactly the three things checked. 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?

The tool is simple (zero parameters), an output schema exists, and the description enumerates the returned subject matter, so an agent knows what it gets back. The only shortfall is the absence of guidance on when to invoke it and how to interpret insufficient permissions.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the sentence adds no parameter noise and correctly implies the tool operates on the current session's box.

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 gives a specific verb ('prüfen') with three concrete targets: box model, FRITZ!OS version, and the box user's permissions. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools (mesh_uebersicht, dsl_status, wlan_status, hosts, anrufliste), none of which report device model, firmware version, or access rights.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight check before performing privileged operations, and nothing states what to do if the check fails.

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