stav_projektu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the output nature (status of done/in-progress/todo) and the brevity trait, but it does not address whether any state changes occur or what inputs/permissions are needed. For a likely read-only status tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-load the core function, then add usage examples and the brevity constraint. There is no filler or repetition.

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 (one parameter, output schema present) and the description covers the main use and output style. However, the complete absence of board parameter guidance leaves a real gap for an agent deciding what value to pass.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'board' parameter, its format, allowed values, or how it relates to the project. The agent receives no help beyond the parameter name itself, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a concrete verb 'Povie' and defines the resource as project status: what is done, in progress, and remaining. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'sumar_projektu' by noting it returns a shorter answer than the full summary.

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 gives explicit trigger questions ('čo je hotové', 'čo ešte treba dorobiť', 'ako sme na tom') and indicates when a shorter answer than the full summary is wanted. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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