zeige

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 does so well: it discloses the ~6000-character per-call cap, that overflow returns a title line plus a follow-up fetch call rather than silent drops, that results preserve requested order, that cut-up memo pieces stay together, and that outdated entries are deliberately included. This is far more behavioral detail than the structured fields supply.

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 behavior and then the routing rule; the Args block is a clear, conventional structure. A few phrases are discursive ('whoever asks for the id means that one too'), but nothing is padding to the point of harm.

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 covers the non-obvious return behavior (cap, overflow fetch hint, ordering) that a schema would not convey. Combined with full parameter coverage and sibling routing, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 does: 'ids' is documented as one or more comma-separated entry ids with a format example ('376,481') and ordering intent ('Most wanted first'), and 'voll' is explained as fetching everything without the cap, including its default of no. Both parameters gain meaning absent from the schema.

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 and resource ('Returns the named entries in full text') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling recall by positioning itself as its 'counterpart'. An agent can tell this apart from recall/verdichten/pruefe without opening a 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 clear workflow context ('first see which entry is meant, then read only that one') and names the alternative tool (recall) explicitly. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it (e.g. free-text search) or any preconditions on the ids, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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