diskuse_prehled

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing behavior ('Přehled... s odkazy na fóra'), which is appropriate, but it does not explicitly describe the return structure, whether the links are clickable, or any limitations. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core function ('Přehled diskusních fór') and adds useful specifics (categories and links) without redundancy.

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 overview tool, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and the output nature (links to forums). It does not detail the exact format of the returned list or how it relates to 'diskuse_vlakno', but no schema or output schema exists to fill that gap, and the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies here; the mention of 'odkazy na fóra' describes output rather than parameters, which is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource: an overview of discussion forums, with example categories and the notion that it returns links to forums. It is somewhat tautological with the tool name ('diskuse_prehled' = discussion overview), and it does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'diskuse_vlakno', but the purpose is nevertheless clear.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it needs an overview of available discussion forums rather than content of a specific thread. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling such as 'diskuse_vlakno'.

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