Auflösungsgebundene Fähigkeitskandidaten finden

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: results are advisory, provenance is unverified, and results never authorize execution. This goes beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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 compact and front-loaded: one core-purpose sentence plus a trust caveat. No filler, though the dense technical jargon slightly reduces immediate readability.

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 simple read-only find tool, it covers purpose, read-only nature, and result reliability. It does not explain what callers should do with the advisory results, how limit behaves, or what a capability candidate looks like, especially since there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions already explain the query and the resolution path with its trust caveat. The description adds only a slight framing ('hash-konsistente System-Explorer-Auflösung') but does not materially exceed the schema.

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 (Bewertet/Evaluates) and names a clear resource: Native-Binding-Behauptungen aus einer hash-konsistenten System-Explorer-Auflösung. The title adds the intent 'Fähigkeitskandidaten finden'. It is specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like controlcenter_find_skill.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as controlcenter_resolve_semantic_route or controlcenter_evaluate_permission. The advisory, unverified nature is implied but no workflow context or alternative selection hint is provided.

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