ezd_koszulka_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's Pobierz dane (fetch data) is fully consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. For a simple read operation the annotation already carries the safety profile, and the description adds only marginal context — the EZD PUW system source and the teczki gloss. This meets the lowered bar set by the annotation but does not exceed it.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb and object come first and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple fetch tool, though it offers no additional structural aids such as examples or caveats.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity — a nested Koszulka object with three alternative identifiers, zero required parameters, and no output schema — yet the description does not tell the agent which identifier to supply or what the returned data will contain. The large sibling list includes koszulka operations like list, search, folder_status and list_documents, and this definition does not explain how its result differs. The one-sentence description is not sufficient to compensate for the missing output schema.

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 percent, so every parameter — CID, the nested Koszulka object with its three identifiers, and the two owner IDs that default to environment variables — is already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource — Pobierz dane koszulki (teczki) z systemu EZD PUW — and the parenthetical teczki usefully clarifies that koszulka means folder in this domain. It clearly signals a fetch operation on a single record, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ezd_koszulka_list or ezd_koszulka_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is a single sentence with no when-to-use guidance whatsoever. It does not mention alternatives such as ezd_koszulka_list for enumerating or ezd_koszulka_search for searching. With zero required parameters and three alternative identifiers (IdSprawy, IdKoszulki, ZnakSprawy), the agent receives no basis for choosing which identifier combination satisfies the call.

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