luceed_skladista

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. 'Master data' weakly implies a read operation, but the description discloses nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens for an unknown code. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is short and front-loads the resource, which is good. But the second sentence ('Actions: lista, sifra') duplicates the schema enum verbatim and does not earn its place, while the resource statement itself is too terse to be actionable.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place return-shape and behavioral context could live. It says nothing about what each action returns or their difference, leaving the definition under-specified for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 both parameters ('action' with its enum and 'sifra' as 'Warehouse code') are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the enum values without explaining what 'lista' or 'sifra' produce, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured data; 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 names the resource ('Warehouses') and its domain ('Warehouse and business unit master data'), which tells an agent this is a master-data read tool for warehouses. However, the actions 'lista' and 'sifra' are cryptic labels with no verb gloss, so the agent does not get a clear statement of what the tool actually returns. It also does not differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling luceed_skladisni_dokumenti (warehouse documents).

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 alternatives like luceed_skladisni_dokumenti, luceed_mjesta, or the general luceed_get. It also does not say when to pick action 'lista' versus 'sifra', leaving selection entirely to inference.

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