isir_stav_serveru

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the call surfaces (today's request count, limits, cache location, OCR availability), which lets an agent reason about rate limiting and service health, but it says nothing about permissions, freshness, or whether any state is mutated.

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 single compact sentence listing three clearly delimited items; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded. Information is front-loaded with the rate-limiter status, the most likely reason to call it.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, yet it still summarizes them well. The only shortfall is the absence of usage or auth guidance, which is minor for a zero-parameter read-only status endpoint.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly spends no words on parameter semantics.

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 resource (server state) and enumerates the concrete facets it reports: request-rate-limiter counts/limits, cache directory, and OCR availability. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (document retrieval, proceedings, events), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The listed contents (rate limiter usage, OCR availability) imply a diagnostic/health-check use case, but the agent must infer that this is the tool to call before hammering the server or when OCR fails.

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