Komisje sejmowe i ich skład

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

PLACEHOLDER

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?

Dense but well structured: each clause maps to a distinct parameter mode, and the sibling redirection comes last. It is longer than a single-sentence tool but nearly every phrase carries information; only the enumeration of returned fields borders on redundancy given the output schema.

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?

Covers all four call modes and routes to the sittings sibling, and an output schema exists so return shapes need not be spelled out. The only minor gap is the behavior of dawniCzlonkowie (include departed members), which is left to the 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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by explaining the branching semantics — that 'kod' resolves to either a committee or a subcommittee depending on the pattern, and that poselId switches the response to an MP-centric view. This is more than the schema's per-parameter strings convey.

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 resource (sejm committees and their composition) and enumerates exactly what each mode returns (kod/nazwa/rodzaj, membership, subcommittees, MP assignments). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling 'posiedzenia_komisji', which handles sittings rather than committee composition.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing for four distinct call shapes: no params for all committees, kod for one committee, a subcommittee kod for one subcommittee, and poselId for an MP's memberships. It also names the sibling tool to use for sittings, leaving nothing to inference.

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