udalosti

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names content categories and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what time range or ordering is used, whether results are summaries or full records, or anything about response shape.

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?

One sentence with a front-loaded core noun phrase and a parenthetical list that earns its place by clarifying content. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool, the description gives enough domain context for basic selection. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not state what the returned records look like or how to interpret them, and 'události' could be misread as calendar events rather than a changelog.

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 schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by listing which kinds of events are covered, which helps an agent understand what the returned data will contain.

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 specific resource—records (záznamy) of events in IS—and enumerates the covered types: changes to exam dates, blocks, grades, discussions, and bulletin boards. It is clear about domain, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like kalendar or zkouskove_terminy.

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 alternatives. The parenthetical list of event types implies it is intended for viewing changes/history, but the description never states when to prefer udalosti over kalendar, rozvrh, or moje_znamky.

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