Auflösungsgebundene Tool-Übersicht anzeigen

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by stating that it separates declared, installed, configured, running, healthy, and observed states, and the parameter description clarifies that the source check remains an untrusted assertion until an external receipt. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then lists the state categories. The jargon is dense, but every phrase carries information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema covers the input well. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or what a 'Tool-Übersicht' concretely contains, and it omits any usage context relative to the large sibling set.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter description adds meaningful detail about the expected file type and trust caveat, but the main description contributes no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Zeigt') and names a concrete resource (native-binding assertions of a self-consistent resolution), plus it enumerates the separated state categories. The title adds that this is a tool overview. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like controlcenter_list_tools or controlcenter_resolve_semantic_route.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus any of the 34 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the schema's required resolutionPath. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage.

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