dosya_dene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the file is read as a stream, returns only the SHA-256 hash and byte size, explicitly says content is not returned, and details rejection conditions ('reddedildi' with reason). This goes well beyond what the minimal schema conveys and fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 a single dense sentence that packs purpose, behavior, constraints, and rejection behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details. It is not verbose or repetitive, though it could benefit from splitting into shorter sentences for easier scanning. Still, every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter, an output schema (though not shown, it is indicated as present), and no annotations, the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, what it returns (hash, size, rejection reason), what it does not return (content), and all rejection rules. No additional information is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema provides only a parameter named 'yol' with type string and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates entirely by explaining that 'yol' must be an absolute path within the allowed incoming directory, and that paths outside, symlinks, or containing '..' are rejected. This adds crucial semantic meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Dosya erişim denemesi' – file access attempt) and specifies the resource (a file at an absolute path in the allowed directory), the actions (searches, reads, returns SHA-256 hash and byte size), and a key constraint (does not return content). It clearly distinguishes itself from the only sibling 'sistem_durumu' (system status) by focusing on file access rather than system information.

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 clearly states the tool's context: it works only within the allowed incoming directory and explicitly rejects paths outside, symbolic links, and '..' paths. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when X', the single sibling (sistem_durumu) is obviously a different operation, so the usage context is unambiguous. However, it lacks an explicit comparison or 'when not to use' clause, which would earn a 5.

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