poznamkove_bloky

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

The description conveys that the tool concerns points and assessments, but with no annotations it carries the full burden, and it does not state the return shape, user scope, side effects, or any behavioral caveats. It is not misleading, but it is thin for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences convey the resource, the contained data, and the optional filter with no filler. The key content is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-oriented tool this is adequate: purpose and optional filter are present. The gaps are the shape of the returned body/hodnocení data, whether the result is scoped to the current user, and what happens when no filter is supplied.

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 input schema only gives 'predmet' as a string with no description (0% coverage), so the description adds real value by explaining that the filter is optional and is a course code. It does not specify the accepted code format, but for one optional parameter this is sufficient.

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 a concrete resource and content ('Poznámkové bloky: body a hodnocení z průběžných aktivit') and mentions an optional subject-code filter. It stops short of an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', and it does not contrast with sibling tools like moje_znamky, so it is clear rather than fully distinct.

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 prefer this tool over the many sibling tools (moje_znamky, predmet_info, harmonogram, etc.). The optional filter is mentioned, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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