luceed_bundle

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 and discloses nothing: no indication of read-only vs. mutating behavior, no return/pagination info, no permission requirements. The "lista" action names weakly imply a listing/read operation, but nothing is stated explicitly, leaving behavior largely opaque.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the opening phrase is redundant/confusing rather than informative. Every token is technically "spent" on the enum restatement, so brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the shape of returned bundle data and how uid/b2b map to the chosen action; it does neither. For a 3-parameter tool with a dependent-parameter enum pattern, this leaves the agent guessing about inputs and results.

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 100%, and the enum on action plus the uid/b2b descriptions already document all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description merely re-lists the enum values and does not explain the pairing between action and its dependent parameter (lista_uid requires uid, lista_b2b requires b2b), adding no real meaning beyond the schema.

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?

"Bundle items: Bundle article definitions and components" reads as a tautology of the name and uses "Bundle" ambiguously as a verb. The listed actions (lista, lista_uid, lista_b2b) suggest a read/list operation over article bundles, but the description never states plainly that it retrieves bundle definitions, nor does it distinguish it from siblings like luceed_artikli or luceed_varijante.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The action names are repeated from the schema enum, which adds no routing information about which action (and thus which of uid/b2b) to pick, and nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to luceed_artikli or luceed_varijante.

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