erp_personel_mesai_hareket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (ERP from PDSK devices) and that it lists hours worked, but doesn't describe return format, pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the data source from the action.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like (structure, fields), authentication requirements, error conditions, or how the tool interacts with the ERP system. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering parameters, more context is needed for effective use.

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 4 parameters with their purposes. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions filtering by personnel and listing hours, which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it pulls overtime movement data from AARO ERP (specifically from PDSK devices) and lists which personnel worked how many hours. It uses specific verbs ('çeker' - pulls, 'listeler' - lists) and identifies the resource (personnel overtime movements). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'erp_personel_listele' which might list personnel without overtime data.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or compare with sibling tools like 'erp_personel_listele' or other ERP listing tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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