themen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: title lines are newest-first, paginated one page at a time, the last line reports the remaining count and how to continue, outdated entries are excluded while the chronicle is counted. It does not mention permissions/auth or rate limits, but the operational mechanics an agent needs are covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the recall contrast, then mechanics, then args. A few sentences (the 'What this is for' motivation paragraph) restate the recall-vs-browse distinction already made and lean stylistic, but nearly everything carries usable 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and all four parameters plus the browsing semantics are documented. The one soft gap is that it never states permission/auth requirements or the shape of a project identifier beyond one example.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and the Args section documents all four parameters with semantics and defaults: marke (empty = tag board), limit (40 board / 30 index), seite (1 = newest), and alle (whole index grouped by kind, with a size warning). This fully fills the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Shows which projects exist - or the title index of one project.' It also explicitly frames itself against the sibling recall ('that searches for words, this browses'), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branches (no argument = tag board; with argument = title index) and names the alternative with conditions ('for anything older use recall(query, marke=...)', 'prefer recall(query, marke=...) when you know a term'). Both routing conditions and the follow-up path (recall/zeige) are spelled out.

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