isir_dokumenty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a flat list and that output is suited to bulk download/OCR, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, rate limits, or the caching/refresh semantics implied by the 'obnovit' parameter. Return-field enumeration does not count since an output schema exists.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences that state the resource and its fields first, then the usage context and the one parameter format note. No filler; slightly compressed to the point where important details were dropped rather than wasted.

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 output schema present means return values need not be explained, but two of three parameters and all behavioral traits remain undocumented with no annotations as backstop. An agent cannot determine the expected format of the required 'rizeni' identifier or what 'obnovit' actually refreshes.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only clarifies one — "oddily: čárkou oddělené" (comma-separated sections) — and leaves the required 'rizeni' and the 'obnovit' flag (presumably a cache refresh) undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb+resource combination: a flat list of all documents for a proceeding, and even enumerates the returned fields (ID, role, size, event, section, date, description). However it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling isir_hledat_v_dokumentech, so an agent must infer whether it is a full listing vs. a filtered search.

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?

"Vhodné jako podklad pro hromadné stažení/OCR" implies the intended context (bulk download/OCR pipeline), which is useful routing signal toward isir_stahnout_dokument. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must guess whether to use this vs. isir_hledat_v_dokumentech.

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