broker_konflikte

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that comparison runs across all broker databases (each server has its own since 22.08), that 'messbar=false/teilweise' invalidates a look-clean result, that bridges are expected rather than anomalous, and the four-way classification of duplicate topics. This is far beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then a well-structured bullet list for the classification categories and a clear caveat about messbar. Some framing prose ('Die gefaehrliche Lage ist nicht...') is slightly rhetorical, but the structure aids scanning and each block mostly earns its place.

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 complex detection tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described) and no annotations, the description supplies the domain logic, the bridge caveat, and the reliability semantics needed to interpret results correctly. The gap is the three undocumented parameters, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains one of four parameters (nur_verdaechtige, including its default and the gespiegelt_nicht_gelistet side effect). limit, stichprobe, and seit_stunden receive no explanation at all, leaving most inputs undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific resource and condition: topics served by more than one broker, framed as an 'Ownership-Canary fuer den Parallelbetrieb zweier Broker'. This is unmistakable and cannot be confused with sibling tools like list_topics or find_silent, which address different concerns (inventory vs. silence detection).

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool matters: comparing across all broker databases during parallel broker operation, and it explains how to configure nur_verdaechtige. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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