ek9_formu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating the output is Markdown and that each row includes Yes/No/Manual and a basis, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss any side effects, permissions, or edge cases. Given the annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core function and output structure. It is front-loaded with the main action (generate the form) and then details the row format. No unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not explain how the parameters affect the generated form, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. With 2 parameters and zero schema coverage, the tool is under-specified. The description only covers the output format but leaves input semantics and usage conditions unaddressed.

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 description provides no information about the parameters 'dosya' (file) or 'disiplin' (discipline). The agent has no clue what these inputs mean, what formats they expect, or how they influence the output. This is a critical gap since the description must compensate for missing schema details but fails to do so.

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 function: generating the EK-9 Model Quality Control Form as Markdown, specifying the table number (9.1), row count (21), and the structure of each row (Evet/Hayır/Elle with justification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ek5_siniflar or ek6_gerekenler, which handle other annexes.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. While the purpose implies it is for the EK-9 form, there is no mention of alternative tools or conditions for selection. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is a significant gap.

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