ezd_jednostka_get_all

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description's 'Pobierz listę' wording is consistent with a read-only operation. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation and does not disclose potential pagination, response volume, or whether the list is unfiltered.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the essential purpose in the most compact form possible.

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 list operation with no required parameters and fully documented schemas, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource, scope, and source system. A small gap is the lack of any note about pagination or return shape, but this is not critical for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema documents CID auto-generation and environment-variable defaults, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action — 'Pobierz listę' (get list) — and a clear resource, 'wszystkich jednostek organizacyjnych' (all organizational units) from EZD PUW. The word 'wszystkich' differentiates this from the sibling ezd_jednostka_get_by_id, which targets a single unit.

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 implies the tool should be used when a complete list of organizational units is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ezd_jednostka_get_by_id or any other alternative. There is no exclusion or alternative routing guidance.

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