posta_slozky

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether any data is destroyed, or what side effects may occur. The bare phrase 'mail folders' with field names gives minimal behavioral insight.

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 short phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource name and lists the expected fields, but it is under-specified as a complete sentence, so it loses one point for lack of action structure.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain the tool's action, return behavior, or relationship to sibling tools. An agent would not know that this tool lists mail folders or when to choose it over posta_seznam. The description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description has nothing to add beyond the empty schema. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies because there is no ambiguity or compensation needed.

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 'Složky pošty (id, název, počet zpráv)' identifies the resource (mail folders) and the data fields, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'. It is more informative than a tautology, yet the agent must infer the operation from the tool name and sibling context.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as posta_seznam or posta_cti. The description does not state any use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess from naming conventions.

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