Upravio public knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the constraint that it only fetches public topics and not arbitrary URLs, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't describe return format or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, and the exclusion is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the ID refers to and what the tool does not do. The only minor gap is the lack of any mention of the return value, but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a small omission.

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 for the single 'id' parameter. The description says the ID refers to a public topic from a catalog or search results, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema (pattern and maxLength). However, it doesn't specify the ID format beyond what the schema already provides, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 states a specific verb ('Dohvati' = fetch/retrieve) and resource ('javnu temu' = public topic) by ID, and explicitly distinguishes it from fetching arbitrary URLs. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from list_capabilities and search_knowledge.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this to fetch a public topic by ID from a catalog or search results. It also provides an exclusion ('Ne dohvaća proizvoljne URL-ove' = does not fetch arbitrary URLs), which helps an agent avoid misuse. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use search_knowledge or list_capabilities instead, but the ID-based retrieval is a clear signal.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool returns a list of functionalities/conditions and explicitly states it does not expose user organization data. This clarifies the scope of what the tool returns without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and then a key exclusion. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition. It is efficient and immediately useful to an agent scanning the tool list.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the output (list of capabilities/conditions) and explicitly excludes user org data. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify what 'pilot conditions' means or how this differs from the sibling knowledge tools, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no properties to describe). The description adds no parameter-level details because none exist. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing missing that could be documented.

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 states a specific action ('Popis funkcionalnosti i uvjeta pilota' – lists capabilities and pilot conditions) and explicitly scopes out what it does not do ('ne prikazuje podatke korisničkih organizacija'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling knowledge tools, which presumably return data content rather than system capabilities.

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?

The description gives a negative scoping ('does not display user organization data') that implies it is not for data retrieval, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of get_knowledge or search_knowledge. There is no mention of the siblings or a condition like 'use this when you need a list of system capabilities.' The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the tool returns sources and is not a generative answer. It also specifies the query language ('na hrvatskom ili po engleskim ključnim riječima'). These details complement the readOnly and idempotent hints, providing useful insight into the tool's behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope, query language, and return type. However, it omits details about the 'limit' parameter, the structure of returned sources, and any ordering or pagination behavior. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter's language semantics but does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Since only one of the two parameters is described, and the description does not cover limits or defaults, it falls short of compensating for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool performs a search ('Pretraga') over specific resource types: functionalities, limitations, and pilots. It also clarifies the return type ('Vraća izvore; nije generativni odgovor'), distinguishing it from a generative response. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the verb 'search' and resource scope make the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings 'get_knowledge' or 'list_capabilities'. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice.

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