Schema.org aus Post extrahieren

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool only reads existing data ('vorhandene'), suggesting a non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention permissions, return format, or behavior when no schema is present, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, succinct sentence front-loaded with the action ('Extrahiert') and object. No filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core action but omits details about the return value or edge cases like missing Schema.org data. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent needing to handle responses confidently.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'postId' with a clear description ('Post/Page ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extrahiert') and clearly identifies the resource ('vorhandene Schema.org Daten') and the target ('aus einem Post'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'seo_generate_schema' and 'seo_get_post_meta' by emphasizing existing data extraction.

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?

The context is clear: use this tool to retrieve existing Schema.org data from a post. Although alternatives are not explicitly named, the phrase 'vorhandene' (existing) implies a contrast with schema generation tools. No exclusions are stated, but the simple read-use-case is well implied.

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