rozvrh

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the default time range and the fields returned, which is useful, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only retrieval operation or how the od/do filtering behaves exactly.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose dash the resource, the period scope, the returned fields, and the default range. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema data.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple schedule lookup, and an output schema exists so return values do not need full documentation. The main gap is the absence of any date format or boundary semantics for od/do, which an agent needs to make a precise period-constrained call.

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 schema provides only 'Od' and 'Do' with empty defaults and no descriptions, and the description adds the key semantic that the tool covers a given period and defaults to the current week. However, it does not specify the expected date format, inclusivity, or behavior when only one parameter is provided.

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 the resource ('Můj rozvrh' – the user's schedule) and the information it contains: name, start, end, and place. It is clear about the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like kalendar or harmonogram.

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 clear usage context: the schedule can be requested for a specified periodive, and if no period is given, it defaults to the current week (Mon–Sun). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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