Agents/Shares eines Geräts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing what the call returns (last snapshot, offsite sync, screenshot verification, last backup status) — the only place that payload is described since there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements, pagination and scale caveats.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the subject first and the returned fields after. Nothing is wasted, though the enumerated return fields make it slightly 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?

With no output schema, the description is the sole source of return-value information and it supplies it at a useful summary level; parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety by the annotations. Only minor gaps remain, such as result volume or pagination behavior for a device with many shares.

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%, with both 'serial' and the 'name' substring filter documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters (e.g. that 'serial' must come from list-devices), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 resource ('geschützte Agents und Shares eines Geräts') and enumerates the data returned (letzter Snapshot, Offsite-Sync, Screenshot-Verification, Backup-Status), which clearly separates it from list-devices or get-device. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource+scope combination is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get-device, list-devices, or find-asset. The only routing hint ('z. B. aus list-devices') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself offers no guidance or exclusions.

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