m3_constant_symbols

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the operation is read-only, which is valuable but minimal. It does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, whether results are ordered by default, or any access prerequisites — gaps that matter for a tool whose only behavioral hint is one word.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first and the safety qualifier second. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter schema coverage, the description leaves an agent without enough context to call confidently. It does not explain what constant symbols represent, how filtering/pagination interact, or what the response contains — a thin definition for a tool in a large unfamiliar API surface.

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 coverage is 50%: 'order' and 'where' get minimal GraphQL-clause descriptions, while 'skip' and 'take' are undocumented (though their names, defaults, and min/max bounds make them self-evident). The description adds zero parameter meaning and does not compensate for the half of the schema that lacks documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (constant symbols, with the Czech gloss). The 'Read-only' qualifier reinforces it as a lookup tool rather than a mutation. It is clear enough to distinguish from the many m3_create_*/m3_delete_* siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any similar list tool.

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?

'Read-only' hints that this is a safe lookup, but the description provides no when-to-use context, no mention of why one would fetch constant symbols, and no exclusions or alternatives. In a sibling list of 60+ tools, the agent gets no routing help beyond the obvious 'this is the list tool for constant symbols.'

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