belge_ozeti

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

The description discloses a concrete behavioral limitation: only the first 50 lines are included ('satırlar (ilk 50)'), and it mentions a signature flag ('imzalı mı'). This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it says nothing about error handling, parameter precedence, or the relationship between the two input options.

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, but it has redundant halves: the Turkish list and the English summary largely overlap. The key behavioral detail (50-line limit) is buried in the Turkish portion rather than front-loaded in the summary sentence.

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 structure is covered elsewhere, but the input side is crucial and unexplained. An agent has no way to know what to pass for 'xml' or 'dosya', nor when this particular summary tool is the right choice relative to its siblings.

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 0%, and the tool description never mentions 'xml' or 'dosya', so an agent gains no extra meaning about input format, expected structure, or whether the parameters are alternatives. The parameter names are mildly self-explanatory but insufficient for confident invocation.

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 'Summary of a UBL-TR document' and enumerates the output components (parties, lines, taxes, totals, signature flag), which is a specific resource-verb pair. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'belge_dogrula' or 'bulgu_acikla', but the summary/validate/explain distinction is reasonably implicit.

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 validation/explanation tools, and no indication of whether to pass XML content via 'xml' or a file path via 'dosya'. The description does not mention prerequisites, mutual exclusivity of the two parameters, or what happens if neither is supplied.

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