kanun_metni_getir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the source (mevzuat.gov.tr), output structure, and input formats. However, it omits potential behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or error handling. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is mostly adequate.

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 with three short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and source. The second provides usage guidance. The third defines input and output. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description fully covers input format, output structure, and usage alternatives. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke 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 schema has only one parameter 'kanun' with 0% coverage. The description meaningfully compensates by explaining it accepts abbreviations ('TMK'), numbers ('4721'), or full identifiers ('1.5.4721'), adding essential guidance beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the official current full text of a law from mevzuat.gov.tr. It specifies the verb 'getirir' and resource 'kanun', and distinguishes from siblings by advising to use 'madde_getir' for single articles.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: for full text of large laws, and when to avoid it: if only a single article is needed, use 'madde_getir' instead. This provides clear guidance.

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