luceed_mjesta

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it: it does not say whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, what the return shape is, or how the four actions differ behaviorally. The only useful nugget is that 'mjesta/list' yields the full list, which is marginal.

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 with the resource name and action list. The mid-sentence Magento reference is a slight non sequitur, but nothing is padded.

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 four-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: the semantics of each action, how parameters bind to actions, and what any call returns. It is underspecified relative to the tool's complexity.

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 every parameter (sifra, dio_naziva, postanski_broj, action). The description merely repeats the action enum and adds no meaning about how parameters pair with actions, e.g. whether action=sifra requires the sifra parameter. Baseline 3 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 identifies the resource clearly (locations/cities, 'mjesta') and enumerates the available actions, so an agent knows this tool serves place data. However, it never states the actual operation in verb form — there is no 'retrieve'/'look up' — and the enum is restated rather than explained, so the intent of each action remains opaque.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as luceed_sifrarnici or luceed_partneri, nor when each action (list vs. sifra vs. naziv vs. postanskibroj) is appropriate. The lone hint — 'Magento uses mjesta/list for full list' — is contextual trivia rather than a usage rule.

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