priority

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does that by stating the tool sorts unfinished tasks by priority/deadline and verbally reports what is urgent, which implies a read-only analysis/reporting behavior. It does not explicitly guarantee read-only or describe edge cases, but nothing in the description suggests side effects.

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, front-loaded sentences: the first states the behavior, the second gives concrete usage examples. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or boilerplate text.

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 is simple, output schema exists, and the description covers behavior and query patterns. However, the required 'board' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the exact interaction between priority and deadline ordering is vague, leaving an agent with a gap between the intent and the actual invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate by explaining the required 'board' parameter, but it never mentions it. The schema only provides 'Board' as a string title, so an agent still has to infer what value to pass, such as a board name or ID. The description adds no semantic value for the one parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Zoradí' – sorts), a specific resource ('nedokončené úlohy' – unfinished tasks), and the ordering criteria (priority and deadline) plus the output ('povie, čo horí'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'stav_projektu' or 'sumar_projektu', which report status or summaries rather than rank tasks.

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?

It explicitly maps the tool to concrete user questions ('aké sú priority', 'čo mám robiť najskôr', 'čo je najdôležitejšie'), giving an agent clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top level of specificity.

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