Agent flottenweit finden

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: it searches only 'geschützte' (protected) assets, implying unprotected devices are excluded, and it discloses what is returned (device, client, backup status) — both are useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, the search key and the scope before the return payload. Nothing is wasted, though the German title largely restates it.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the returned fields (device, client, backup status), and annotations cover the safety profile. Gaps remain on result cardinality (multiple matches), pagination/limits, and the precise meaning of 'geschützt'.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including that hostname is a substring match and includeHidden defaults to false. The description only echoes the hostname/FQDN lookup and the fleet-wide scope, adding no format or matching semantics beyond 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?

Names a specific verb (search) plus the resource (protected server/agent/share), the lookup key (hostname/FQDN), the scope (all devices), and even the return payload (device, client, backup status). It is distinguishable from get-device (single) and list-device-assets, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the lookup key and fleet-wide scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no guidance on preferring list-devices/get-device or on what happens when the hostname matches multiple assets. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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