ek5_siniflar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the two tables (Tablo 5.1 mandatory, Tablo 5.2 optional) and the ara filter behavior, but does not go further (e.g., no mention of output size, matching rules, or pagination). Consistent with annotations — no contradiction.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and the filter detail second. Bilingual (Turkish/English) but no redundancy — every clause earns its place. Ideal length for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Complete for a simple, one-optional-parameter, read-only lookup. The output schema exists and documents return values, so the description needn't explain them. The only minor gap is filter matching details, which are parameter semantics rather than overall completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that `ara` filters by class/Turkish name, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it omits matching semantics (partial vs. exact, case sensitivity), leaving the agent to guess filter behavior.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('the regulation's mandatory and optional IFC classes') with the exact data returned (Turkish names, 3-letter category codes). It's specific enough to distinguish from siblings like model_ozeti or yonetmelik_bilgisi, even without naming them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings yonetmelik_bilgisi and yonetmelik_kontrolu are closely related regulation tools, and the description doesn't disambiguate when to reach for this one. Usage context is only implied by the EK-5 IFC-class scope.

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