Capability-Bundles empfehlen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of how recommendations are computed, what outputs look like, or any other operational details. It merely restates the tool's obvious purpose, offering minimal value beyond annotations.

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 that immediately conveys the core function with no superfluous words or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 recommendation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic intent but lacks details on return format, decision criteria, or failure scenarios (e.g., when no bundles match). It is minimally viable but not richly informative.

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%: all three parameters have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description offers no additional parameter insights, but since the schema is self-sufficient, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific function: 'Empfiehlt passende Capability-Bundles für eine Aufgabenbeschreibung' (recommends suitable capability bundles for a task description). Use of the verb 'empfiehlt' (recommends) and the target resource 'Capability-Bundles' distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_bundles (simple listing) or suggest_profile (profile suggestion).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_bundles or assign_tool_bundles. The description implies usage for task descriptions, but does not were-when to use this over similar tools, leading to only implied usage.

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