Fehlgeschlagene Screenshot-Verifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior. The description adds genuinely new semantics by defining what counts as 'failed' — the last attempt or backups within the period — which the annotations do not cover. It does not describe result volume or ordering, but the failure criterion is meaningful added context.

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, tightly-worded sentence with no filler, front-loading the result set before the qualifying definition. Efficient, though the parenthetical definition is somewhat dense.

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?

For a read-only query tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description states the returned entity type and the failure criterion, which is close to adequate. It is silent on result shape, ordering, or pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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 (days, client, includeHidden) are already documented in the schema. The description only references the 'letzten X Tagen' window and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific result set — agents whose screenshot verification failed — which is clearly distinct from siblings like get-screenshot (retrieves a screenshot) or get-backup-health-summary. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the scope is unambiguous. No explicit sibling differentiation is provided.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. list-alerts or get-backup-health-summary), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the invocation context entirely.

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