get_planungsgruppen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are scoped to the logged-in employee, provides the return structure (Array of { name, id }), and warns that example IDs may vary per installation. These are useful behavioral details beyond a generic 'get' operation, though it does not mention edge cases like empty results or errors.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-purpose statement, a return type line, and a helpful example section. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. There is no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 list-returning tool with two well-documented parameters, the description includes all essential elements: purpose, usage context, return format, and example IDs. It also benefits from sibling tool context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (year and month) with ranges and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'given month' only lightly echoes the schema without adding new semantic meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because no additional parameter context is needed.

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 verb ('Returns'), the resource ('all planning groups'), and the scope ('visible to the logged-in employee for the given month'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it should be used before get_abteilungsdienstplan, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this to discover available group IDs before calling get_abteilungsdienstplan,' providing direct guidance on when to use the tool and its relationship to a sibling. This is a clear, actionable usage instruction that goes beyond merely describing the tool.

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