verdichten

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it explicitly says the tool does not summarize and that the actual write/supersede step is the caller's responsibility via remember. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral contract an agent needs. It says nothing about cost, authentication, or whether the matching is case-sensitive.

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 purpose before the Args block, and each arg entry is compact. The historical aside about #1448 explaining the old `tags` behavior is useful semantic context but is the one paragraph that a calling agent does not strictly need.

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 values need not be spelled out, yet the description still clarifies that groups are delivered rather than rewritten entries. For a no-annotation tool with a 0%-covered schema, the remaining gap is the absence of any note on how many entries are examined or the cost of large thresholds, plus the unenumerated art values.

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 it largely does: marke is explained with matching semantics and examples ("spiel3d-test" also matches "spiel3d-test Nachtfrost"), art and gruppen are described, and schwelle is defined as the similarity threshold. However, schwelle gives no scale or range (0–1?) and art never enumerates the accepted kinds, so real ambiguity remains.

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 first sentence gives a concrete verb and result ("Finds groups of entries that say largely the same thing"), and the second immediately scopes it against the writing path by stating it does not summarize and that superseding happens via remember(..., ersetzt="..."). An agent can place this tool in a multi-step consolidation workflow without opening any 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?

It supplies real usage context: consolidation is the intended job, and art="verlauf" is called out as the most worthwhile case. It also names recall and themen as the reference for how marke is interpreted, giving the agent a comparison point. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use exclusions against pruefe or zeige.

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