ezd_koszulka_folder_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read operation, and the description's 'get' verb is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. The description adds only the employee-scoping detail, which is already reflected in the required IdPracownika parameter; it does not disclose return format, pagination, or possible empty-result behavior, so it provides minimal extra behavioral context.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, entirely relevant to the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though it lacks any structured breakdown of what statuses are returned.

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's simplicity, the readOnlyHint annotation, and full schema coverage, the description provides a minimally adequate basis for calling the tool. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not clarify what the returned statuses look like or how many folder records may be returned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies a user's request.

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%, so the parameters IdPracownika, CID, IdPracownikaWlasciciela, and IdStanowiskaWlasciciela are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the operation is scoped to a worker ('dla pracownika') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Pobierz statusy folderow koszulki dla pracownika' states a specific verb (get), resource (folder statuses of koszulka), and target (for employee), making it clearly distinct from sibling koszulka operations like create, list, get, or transfer. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource-and-scope phrasing is precise enough for an agent to separate it from them.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The single sentence states only what it returns; it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or route the agent to a sibling tool (e.g., koszulka_list or koszulka_get) for different needs.

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