diskuse_vlakno

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly conveys this is a read operation ('Přečte') and lists the fields returned, which gives basic transparency. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as the effect of max_prispevku (default 30) on output length, pagination, error behavior, or any limitations. The description is not misleading but is only partially transparent.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a useful contextual hint about where URLs come from. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no redundant wording. It loses one point because it could have used the available space to mention parameters without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry a heavier load. It fails to explain the max_prispevku parameter, does not describe the return structure beyond listing fields, and gives no sense of error handling or pagination. For an agent to invoke this tool reliably, more context is needed.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter. The 'url' parameter is inferable from the sentence about URLs from overview/calendar, but 'max_prispevku' is never mentioned, and no details about format, constraints, or default behavior are provided. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Přečte' (reads) and the resource 'vlákno diskuse' (discussion thread), and specifies the content (author, date, text). It distinguishes the tool implicitly from siblings like diskuse_prehled by focusing on a specific thread, but does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast its scope, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 provides usage context by stating the URL comes from an overview or calendar, implying the tool is used when a specific thread URL is available. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over diskuse_prehled or other alternatives, nor does it give any 'when not to use' guidance. The context is implied rather than stated.

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