Słownik EstiCRM

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds a valuable behavioral limitation: the tool only exposes three fixed dictionaries and cannot be used as a generic API endpoint, which is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by one necessary constraint. There is no filler or repetition of the title or annotations.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the required parameter's domain and an important safety boundary. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented optional 'nazwa' parameter, which is not required for a valid 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden. It maps the enum values of 'rodzaj' to the three dictionaries, but it says nothing about the optional 'nazwa' parameter, leaving its meaning and effect ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'pobiera' one of three dictionaries, and it explicitly enumerates them (oferty, mapowanie_ofert, systemowy). It also distinguishes itself from a generic API-call tool by adding the constraint that it cannot invoke an arbitrary API path.

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 usage context is only implied: an agent should call this when it needs one of the three named dictionaries. The description includes a useful 'when-not' ('Nie pozwala wywołać dowolnej ścieżki API'), but it does not mention alternatives or explain when a sibling tool would be preferred.

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