sumar_projektu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (creates a complete summary by fixed template) and mentions the flexible board parameter, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the response will contain. This is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Three short sentences with no fluff: purpose, usage triggers, and parameter semantics. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence carries meaningful guidance.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context and parameter meaning. It could be slightly more complete with an explicit note on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'Board' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'board' can be a board name, a part of a name, or an ID. This gives the agent all necessary semantic information.

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 clearly states the tool creates a complete project summary according to a fixed template, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stav_projektu or zoznam_boardov, though the summary-focused trigger phrases imply the distinction.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete trigger phrases ('urob mi sumár projektu', 'zhrň projekt', 'ako to vyzerá s projektom'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, 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.