detect_xrechnung

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the input and output format but does not mention error handling, side effects, or constraints (e.g., XML size, encoding). For a detection tool, the basic behavior is clear, but transparency is limited.

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 extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose and a structured Args/Returns section. No wasted words; each sentence contributes meaningfully.

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, clear output), the description covers essential information. However, it omits details on malformed or non-XRechnung input behavior. Though an output schema exists, the description could still benefit from mentioning expected response fields.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'xml' expects XML content, but does not specify formatting (e.g., string, base64) or provide examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's type and title.

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 clearly states the tool detects if an XML document is an XRechnung and identifies its format and version. The verb 'detect' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like validate_xrechnung or parse_xrechnung.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as validate_xrechnung or parse_xrechnung. The description implies it's a preliminary check, but lacks direct comparison or usage scenarios.

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