Rasadi Analitik

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added behavior (empty site falls back to the first site) duplicates what the site parameter's schema description already says, so it contributes little beyond structured data.

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 compact sentences with zero waste: the report contents come first, then the defaulting rules for the two optional inputs. Nothing is repeated or 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still names the key metrics; all parameters are documented in the schema. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance against the sibling tools, which for a zero-required-parameter read tool is a minor gap.

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% — all three parameters, including the api_token/OAuth note, are documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the site and day defaults adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific resource and scope — a site's daily report — and enumerates its contents (visitors, pageviews, sales/revenue, top 5 pages), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings kirik_linkler, oneriler, or siteler, though the subject matter is plainly different.

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?

It gives the defaulting behavior for both inputs (empty site = first site, empty day = today), which is actionable, but it never says when to choose this tool over the sibling reporting/listing tools. Usage is implied by the report contents rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-window scoping and the shape of returned data, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication needs, or result limits.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource (404s) and scope (last N days). It is efficient, though the enumerated field list borders on restating output that the output schema already provides.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, which it mostly does. However, it omits any routing guidance among the sibling tools, leaving an agent to guess which tool answers a 'recent errors' question.

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 three parameters (site, api_token, gun_sayisi) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Son N gundeki' loosely mirrors gun_sayisi but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb+resource: listing 404 errors over the last N days, plus the fields returned (adres, vurus, oturan sayisi). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like gunluk_ozet or oneriler.

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 sibling summary/suggestions tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The 'last N days' scoping is implied only through the parameter default.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the cards are current and derive from the 'Rasadi insight engine', which is modest context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose ordering, freshness window, or volume of cards returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with an output schema worth orienting the agent toward.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a tool whose purpose is to surface 'insight cards', the description leaves the agent without enough grounding to choose it over the sibling summary/link tools.

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% and both parameters (site, api_token) are fully documented in the schema, including the fallback-to-first-site behavior and the OAuth alternative for the token. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 a specific resource ('guncel oneri kartlari' – current suggestion cards) and attributes it to the Rasadi insight engine, so the agent knows roughly what is returned. However, it never differentiates from siblings like gunluk_ozet (daily summary) or kirik_linkler (broken links), and 'oneri kartlari' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'oneriler'. Vague but not tautological.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus gunluk_ozet, kirik_linkler, or siteler, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the noun phrase in the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact not in the annotations: using api_token narrows the result to a single site, and it flags an OAuth-vs-token auth requirement. That is useful context, but the rest is thin.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is telegraphic enough ('api_token ile tek site') that the subject/predicate must be inferred, costing a little clarity without bloating the text.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter at 100% schema coverage and an output schema that already documents the return shape. Purpose plus auth behavior is therefore sufficient, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description goes one step further by explaining the functional consequence of supplying api_token (only one site returned), which is semantics an agent cannot read off 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Erisebildigin siteleri goster' = show the sites you can access) and even enumerates the returned fields (id, ad, adres), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from siblings (gunluk_ozet, kirik_linkler, oneriler), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The conditional 'OAuth yoksa api_token ile tek site' is real usage guidance about which auth path to take and what that choice implies. However, it says nothing about when this tool is preferable to the sibling tools, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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