ek6_gerekenler

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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that for an uncoded class it explicitly says so, and it clarifies which annex applies depending on the class type (building elements vs project/person/organization/coordinate). No contradiction with annotations.

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 main content is front-loaded in the first Turkish sentence, and the edge-case behavior is a useful second sentence. However, the final English sentence largely repeats the first one, adding redundancy without new information.

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 the tool's simplicity (one string parameter, output schema present) and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, scope, annex applicability, and unknown-class behavior. It does not over-explain return values, which is appropriate since an output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only restates that the input is 'one IFC class,' which is already evident from the parameter name `ifc_sinifi`. It provides no format guidance, examples, or constraints (e.g., must be a valid IFC class name), leaving the agent to guess the expected string shape.

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 specifies the resource (one IFC class) and what is returned (mandatory attributes, property sets, predefined type list) and anchors it to Annex 6/7. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like ek5_siniflar or model_ozeti, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 implies the tool should be used when a user needs the required attributes or property sets for a single IFC class per Annex 6/7, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over siblings or state any exclusions. No alternative tools are named or compared.

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