luceed_grupe_artikala

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether these actions read or mutate data, what permissions are needed, what each action returns, or what 'dodaci' actually means. The action labels are not explained.

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?

The text is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is written as two noun/verb fragments, and the action list adds no information beyond the enum already present in the schema.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three parameters whose semantics are only partly clear, the description should explain the four actions and what each returns. Instead it only names them, leaving an agent unable to confidently pick an action or predict the shape of 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (sifra, action, dio_naziva). The description only echoes the action enum values without adding meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 is a fragment ('Product groups: Article groups. Actions: lista, sifra, naziv, dodaci.') that names a resource area but never states a clear verb. Listing the action enum values restates the schema rather than explaining what the tool does, and it does not distinguish itself 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools (luceed_artikli, luceed_robne_marake, luceed_sifrarnici, etc.). The only implicit signal is that it concerns article groups, which an agent must infer from the resource name alone.

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