Słowniki bazy aktów prawnych

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds modest context – the ~2500 keyword volume, that 'wydawcy' includes act counts, and that 'tytuly' requires a phrase – but discloses nothing about response sizing, pagination, or auth that would matter for a ~2500-entry result set.

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?

A compact two-clause sentence that front-loads the returned vocabulary before the usage directive. No filler, though the enumerated list is dense and could be marginally tightened without losing information.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value format needn't be restated, and the description covers what the enum values mean plus the call ordering relative to szukaj_aktow. For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is essentially complete, with only the enumeration/response-size detail left implicit.

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 only 50% and the enum parameter has no schema description, so the description carries real weight by mapping each enum value (rodzaje, statusy, instytucje, slowa_kluczowe, powiazania, wydawcy, tytuly) to its meaning. It also reinforces that 'tytuly' needs a fraza, which the schema notes but the description corroborates in context.

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 (permissible lookup values for act searching) and enumerates exactly what it returns: act types, statuses, institutions, keywords (~2500), relation types, publishers, and title suggestions. This clearly differentiates it from the search sibling szukaj_aktow, so an agent knows it is a vocabulary/dictionary endpoint rather than a query endpoint.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Użyj, zanim podasz słowo kluczowe albo rodzaj do szukaj_aktow' – a clear trigger condition tied to the named sibling szukaj_aktow, which is the strongest form of routing guidance. There is no explicit 'when-not-to-use' statement, but the single-use case is unambiguous.

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