fulltext

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool follows the record to an external repository, lists publicly exposed documents, notes that the theses.cz `access` field does not determine downloadability, and explains how to interpret file fields and empty results. This gives the agent a realistic model of what happens and what to expect.

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 relatively long but every sentence adds essential context: purpose, repository layout, parameter format, access interpretation, file structure, and edge-case handling. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, then elaborates in a logical order. No fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity, lack of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the output shape (`label`, `filename`, `url`, optional `confirmed` and `content_type`), behavioral nuances (`access` is not determinative), and how to handle empty results (`note` means gated, not an error). The agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret 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?

There is only one parameter, `id_or_url`, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by specifying the accepted formats: 'thesis code ("7lfo74"), /id/7lfo74/ or a full URL.' This is explicit and leaves no ambiguity about what value to pass.

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: 'Resolve a thesis to downloadable full-text files in its school's repository.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings `search` and `detail` by focusing on file retrieval rather than discovery or metadata. It also explains why this tool is needed (theses.cz stores only metadata) which further cements its unique purpose.

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 explains the context of use and provides actionable guidance, such as 'always check `files`' and what an empty `files` plus a `note` means. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the purpose is clear enough to infer that it is for fulltext resolution, while siblings handle search and detail. Overall, clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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