zkouskove_terminy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it clearly states the key trait: this is an overview only and performs no enrollment. It also scopes the data to announced ('vyhlášené') exam terms, preventing the agent from over-promising.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('Vyhlášené zkušební termíny') and uses a parenthetical to add the critical safety caveat. No filler or redundant restatement.

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, read-only listing, the description provides sufficient scope and safety context. It does not specify the exact return fields, but with no output schema and low complexity that is not a significant gap.

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 has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for a no-parameter tool, the description needs no additional parameter detail.

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 ('announced exam dates of my courses') and labels it as an overview, so the agent knows it is a read-only listing. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like kalendar or harmonogram by the scope 'mých předmětů' and the 'zkouškové termíny' subject matter.

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 phrase 'pouze přehled' and the explicit caveat 'nástroj nikoho nikam nepřihlašuje' tell the agent when this tool is appropriate and that it must not be used for enrollment. It does not name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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