kalendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that data cover the currently displayed IS period and explains date and type formats, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe side effects, or indicate how output will be shaped.

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 compact and front-loaded: content categories come first, followed by data scope and format details. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 an optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main input semantics and data scope. It lacks a clear statement of the relationship between `od`/`do` and the returned period, and it offers no routing guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving some context for the agent to infer.

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 missing parameter documentation. It meaningfully explains `typy` (comma-separated codes or name parts) and specifies the date format YYYY-MM-DD, which likely applies to `od` and `do`. It does not explicitly define `od`/`do` as a date-range pair, though their names strongly imply this.

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 identifies the resource as a calendar and enumerates the event categories it aggregates (notice board, submission box, questionnaires, semester events, holidays, exams). This gives a clear sense of scope, though there is no explicit verb and no direct contrast with sibling tools like `udalosti`.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `rozvrh`, `deadlines`, or `zkouskove_terminy`. The intended use must be inferred from the name and content list, and no exclusions or precedence rules are provided.

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