luceed_prijevodi

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 it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only listing, whether it requires auth, how results are scoped by table/language, or any pagination behavior. The word 'records' weakly implies retrieval but is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 terse fragments with no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is front-loaded with the resource, which is the only structural merit.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke this correctly — it never explains what 'lista' returns, how tablica/jezik filter results, or whether uid narrows to a single record.

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 all four parameters (uid, jezik, action, tablica) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format or semantic detail beyond the generic word 'tables'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource (translation records for tables) and the sole action (lista/list), so an agent can tell it retrieves translations. However, it gives no distinguishing scope versus siblings like luceed_artikli or luceed_sifrarnici, and the verb is only implied by the enum value.

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, nor any stated preconditions. 'Actions: lista' only restates the enum constraint already in the schema.

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