yonetmelik_kontrolu

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the output format (level, article, EK-9 line, GlobalId list) and the default behavior of the `disiplin` parameter (derived from file name, fallback to MM). This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without 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?

The description is informative but somewhat verbose, with the Turkish and English sentences repeating the core purpose. It is structured with a list of checks and a parameter note, but the redundancy and length could be trimmed for clarity without losing essential details.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope, output format, and parameter behavior, and an output schema exists to specify return values. It lacks explicit mention of the `dosya` parameter's exact format and any prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand how to invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the `disiplin` parameter (allowed values and default logic), but it does not explicitly define the `dosya` parameter as the IFC file path, though it is implied by the tool's purpose. Given the schema has 0% coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 checks an IFC model against the Turkish building-permit BIM regulation, lists specific checks (IFC version, skeleton, EK-5 classes, naming, attribute sets, coordinate system, etc.), and describes the output findings. This is a distinct, comprehensive compliance check that is easily differentiated from the specialized sibling tools.

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 usage for a full compliance audit but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ek5_siniflar or ek6_gerekenler. It provides context but no exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer the scope.

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