Mine værktøjer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little return context (grouped per project, includes daily rate), but says nothing about how 'dagsleje' is derived, freshness, or result shape, and with no output schema that gap matters.

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?

It is a single short clause with no filler, and the scope qualifiers ('pr. projekt, med dagsleje') come after the core claim. It is efficient, though being a sentence fragment it is terse to the point of being cryptic rather than thoroughly front-loaded.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema and no field documentation, the description should at least sketch what comes back. It hints at per-project groupings with a daily rate but leaves the structure, any time scoping, and the meaning of 'dagsleje' unexplained.

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 no parameter semantics for the description to explain; baseline is 4. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 conveys the resource ('det, du har ude' – what you currently have checked out) and adds scope detail (per project, with daily rate). However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like lager_tjek_ud, lager_projekter, or lager_me, so an agent cannot confidently route to it from the text alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative sibling is named. The phrase 'det, du har ude' weakly implies a read of current loans, but the agent is given no condition that selects this tool over the many other lager_* query tools.

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