posta_seznam

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 disclose folder resolution and pagination behavior, and the verb 'Seznam' implies read-only listing, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, ordering, or any rate/output limits.

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 three short, information-dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes either output context, parameter semantics, or pagination guidance.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers return fields, folder selection, and pagination reasonably well. However, it misses explicit semantics for two of the four parameters and does not address potential concerns like whether listing affects read/unread state.

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. It adds real semantics for slozka (id or partial name, empty = inbox) and start (pagination offset), but pocet and jen_neprectene are left unexplained beyond their Czech names and schema defaults.

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 a clear verb and resource: list messages in a folder, and enumerates the returned fields (id, from, subject, date, size, unread). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with posta_cti/posta_slozky, so it stops 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 gives concrete usage context: how to specify a folder by id or partial name, that an empty value means the inbox, and that pagination is driven by start. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for a list operation.

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