moje_znamky

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 adds one useful behavioral detail: the tool includes older grading periods when the underlying system exposes them. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, but for a zero-parameter 'my grades' list this is largely inferable.

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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical field list and one worthwhile scope caveat. No words are wasted and the most important meaning is immediately visible.

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 read/list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the data fields and clarifies historical coverage. It only lacks a small amount of sibling differentiation and explicit read-only confirmation, but these are not necessary to invoke the tool successfully.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for in parameter documentation. The field list in the description gives useful context about what the returned data contains.

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 expands the resource into a concrete list of grade/evaluation data with fields (subject, credits, completion, grade, date) and adds temporal scope (older periods if the IS shows them). It is clear, though it has no explicit action verb and does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as zkouskove_terminy or moje_predmety.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than its siblings, no alternative names, and no conditions of use. The only context is the note that older periods are included if the IS displays them, which is a data-scope caveat, not a usage guideline.

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