luceed_radni_nalozi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: no read-only/mutation signal, no auth or permission notes, no pagination or date-range behavior despite od_datuma/do_datuma existing, and no hint of what any of the five actions returns. For a multi-endpoint dispatcher with zero structured behavioral metadata this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence enumerates the action values verbatim from the schema and therefore earns little of its space. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 8 parameters, 5 dispatch actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain each action's purpose and required inputs; it does none of that. An agent cannot determine what 'stavke' versus 'webkod' returns or which parameters pair with which action.

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 eight parameters and the required action enum; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's action list duplicates the enum and adds no new meaning about how uid, webkod, partner, partner_uid, or stavke relate to each other.

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?

It identifies the resource (work / service orders, 'radni nalozi') but uses no verb and never says whether it reads, lists, or creates them beyond the generic 'Actions' list. It also fails to distinguish itself from the many similar sibling dispatchers (luceed_nalozi_prodaje, luceed_nalozi_povrata, luceed_nalozi_proizvodnje, luceed_recent_sales_orders). An agent can guess the domain but not the operation.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The 'Actions: uid, webkod, partner...' line merely restates the enum rather than explaining which action an agent should pick for a given intent or what each returns.

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