bilinen_kanunlar

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explains the behavior (lists registered laws with specific fields) and adds a caveat about unregistered laws being callable, which is useful context beyond the tool name.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds essential context about coverage. Every sentence 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?

Given no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description explains the purpose, fields, and scope (quick index). It is complete for this simple list 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the output fields (kısaltma, no, ad, mevzuat_id), exceeding the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 lists registered laws with specific fields (kısaltma, no, ad, mevzuat_id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like madde_getir or mevzuat_ara by emphasizing it is a quick index of common laws.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (to list registered laws) and notes that unregistered laws can still be called by number/id, implying this is not exhaustive. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with siblings.

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