sistem_durumu

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by listing the informational payload and explicitly stating that the response contains no path, key, or environment variable, which is useful safety-relevant context. It does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, but the read-only status framing makes that reasonably clear.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose first, then a valuable negative constraint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, what fields it returns, and what sensitive content it will not include. Nothing else is needed for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline is 4. The description adds a small bonus by explicitly noting the tool contains no path, key, or environment variable, reinforcing the null parameter expectation.

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 ('döndürür'/'returns') with a clear resource ('DEFTERIKI'nin durumu') and enumerates exactly what the status includes: app version, environment, schema version, and server capability list. This both identifies the tool's function and makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling tool, dosya_dene, which is file-oriented.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need current server status, version, environment, or capability information. However, it does not explicitly state when this should be preferred over an alternative or when it should be avoided, so the guidance is not fully explicit.

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