harmonogram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses the default scope behavior (all faculties vs. faculty-specific) and enumerates the kinds of dates included. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response structure is, or any limitations. It adds some value beyond the name but leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 entire description is two short clauses, front-loading the tool's content and then the only parameter behavior. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool covers and how the faculty filter works. Yet it leaves details ambiguous: what 'další termíny' includes, what the output looks like, and how this differs from kalendar/rozvrh/zkouskove_terminy. More context would help an agent pick it correctly, but it is not severely lacking.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter; it does so by stating that omitting the parameter returns all faculties and supplying a value filters by faculty abbreviation (e.g., 'FSS'). It clarifies the effect of the parameter and provides a format example, which the schema lacks. No other parameters exist.

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 the tool provides the semester schedule including enrollments, teaching, exam periods, and other dates, giving a clear resource and content scope. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the noun 'Harmonogram' implies retrieval. It partially distinguishes from siblings by enumerating content areas, though it does not name alternatives.

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 parameter usage (no parameter returns all faculties, otherwise a faculty abbreviation) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings like kalendar, rozvrh, or zkouskove_terminy. There are no explicit when-not conditions or alternative references.

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