madde_getir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns `metin` (consolidated text), `kaynak` (verification URL), and a possible warning. It also describes failure mode (article not found). However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Lacking annotations, the description is fairly transparent but could be more explicit about being a read-only operation.

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 only two paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second paragraph provides usage context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no verbosity or repetition.

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 output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the return fields (`metin`, `kaynak`, `uyari`) and failure handling. It explains what to do with the output. However, it does not explicitly state the data structure of the return object, which would help an agent parse the response 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `kanun` parameter can be an abbreviation ('TBK'), number ('6098'), or full ID ('1.5.6098'). For `madde_no`, it is implied as the article number. While it adds value beyond the schema, it does not specify exact format constraints or validation rules for `kanun`.

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 text of a specific article of a law. The verb 'getirir' and resource 'bir kanunun belirli maddesinin RESMÎ güncel metni' are specific. The tool is distinguished from siblings like 'kanun_metni_getir' (law text retrieval) and 'mevzuat_ara' (search).

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 says 'Atıf yapmadan önce bunu çağır' (call this before citing), explains returned fields (`metin`, `kaynak`, `uyari`), instructs what to do if `metin` is None, warns not to fabricate, and explains the `kanun` parameter format. This provides clear when-to-use and what-to-expect guidance.

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