luceed_statusi

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 essentially nothing: no read-only assurance, no auth/permission requirements, no pagination or volume expectations. It does not contradict anything, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond the bare resource name.

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-loads the resource, but it reads as a fragment list rather than a sentence, and the action enumeration duplicates the schema instead of earning its place with new information. Not wasteful in length, but poorly structured.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the call returns and how the actions differ. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or the distinction between 'lista', 'domena', and 'nalozi_prodaje'.

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 both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description repeats the action enum verbatim and only vaguely gestures at the 'domena' parameter via 'by domain', adding no format or value guidance beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (status definitions) and scopes it to a domain, but gives no verb (list/get/describe) and the phrase 'Status definitions by domain' is ambiguous about whether it returns the definition catalogue or a status value. The sibling set is large and nothing here distinguishes this tool from e.g. luceed_sifrarnici or luceed_nalozi_prodaje.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites. Notably, one of the enum actions ('nalozi_prodaje') overlaps a sibling tool name, luceed_nalozi_prodaje, and the description does not clarify the relationship, leaving the agent to guess.

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