moje_seminarni_skupiny

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states that the tool is only an overview and does not enroll or unenroll anyone anywhere, which is a valuable side-effect disclosure. It does not mention authorization, data freshness, or result ordering, but for a zero-parameter read-only overview these omissions are minor.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and its content, then adds the crucial no-side-effects clarification in a separate sentence. 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?

With zero parametersholander and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It states the subject area (seminar group overview), enumerates the expected fields, and clarifies that no action with side effects is performed. Nothing essential appears missing for a tool of this simplicity.

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 parametersaine, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description instead lists the kind of data returned (subject, group, terms, rooms, associated subjects), which adds useful context. This matches the baseline for tools with no parameters and adds no contradictory or confusing parameter information.

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 as the user's seminar groups and enumerates the included data: subject, group, dates/times, rooms, and associated subjects. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'show,' but 'Pouze přehled' makes the retrieval intent clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like rozvrh and moje_predmety, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 implies this is the tool to use when someone wants an overview of their seminar groupsadian, and it explicitly rules out enrollment/unenrollment actions. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance beyond 'Pouze přehled'. The usage context is mostly inferred rather than explicitly stated.

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