report_check_note

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that the note appears immediately in the Hinweise tab, that element_ids make it clickable, that clicking can zoom to the affected parts, and that notes can be checked off. It also exposes the deliberate design separation between severity and urgency.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves through purpose, usage guidance, exclusions, and parameter details in a scannable structure. Every sentence earns its place, including the rationale for separating dringlichkeit and schweregrad, which an agent needs to respect when setting values.

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?

All five parameters are semantically described, defaults and value spaces are explicit, and the behavioral effect is stated clearly. The lack of an output schema is not a gap here because the tool's effect is visible in the Cadwork UI and the description says exactly where and how it appears.

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%, but the Args block fully compensates for every parameter: titel is described as a one-line headline, text carries assumptions and reasons, element_ids make the note clickable, schweregrad enumerates its allowed values with its default, and dringlichkeit explains the 1–5 scale, the 0 auto-derivation mapping, and why it is intentionally separate from severity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Meldet einen Prüfhinweis ins Fenster „Open MCP CAD“ in Cadwork.' It is unmistakably about creating a visible check note for a human, and the explicit contrast with collision search and chat-only communication removes any ambiguity about its scope.

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 gives direct when-to-use guidance: use this instead of mentioning uncertainties only in chat, because chat messages get lost while notes sit next to the model and can be ticked off. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use: no collision search, because Cadwork has its own.

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