vyveska

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns a list or detail view, whether it requires authentication, or how the 'typ' filter behaves (e.g., does '' return everything?). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 short and front-loaded with the resource name and purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured by separating the purpose from the parameter explanation.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the filter behaves, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'udalosti' or 'inzerce' (if any). An agent would struggle to know when to call this tool and what to expect.

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 does explain the 'typ' parameter values ('', 'pozvanky', 'inzerce') but does not clarify the exact meaning of each value (e.g., does 'pozvanky' mean invitations only?) or whether the parameter is optional. The description adds some value but is incomplete.

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 ('Vývěska' = notice board) and mentions it contains important messages, invitations, and classifieds. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'list' or 'get', and the typ parameter values are only partially explained ('' for all, 'pozvanky', 'inzerce'), leaving the meaning of the resource somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'udalosti' (events), 'posta_seznam' (mail list), or 'diskuse_prehled' (discussion overview). The description implies it is for notices, but does not state when it should be preferred over alternatives.

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