Dilekce Taslagi

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 usefully discloses that the output is a skeleton (not a finished document), that uslup=true injects style from registered local examples, and that the tool itself does not persist anything. It does not state that it reads from a local style folder as a side effect, nor characterize it as a pure read 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the uslup conditional, then the next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return structure need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the parameters. The description covers purpose, the key optional behavior, and the follow-up tool, leaving only minor gaps about how the context fields shape the generated skeleton.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes the tur enum and the uslup behavior that the schema already states. It adds no extra meaning (e.g., how konu/davaci/davali/mahkeme/dosya_no influence the skeleton), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Dilekçe iskeleti döner') and enumerates the supported petition types (dava, cevap, islah, istinaf, temyiz, icra_itiraz), which maps exactly to the tur parameter. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling udf_yaz, which is where the finished text is saved.

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?

Clearly tells the agent its role in the workflow: this tool only returns a skeleton, the agent writes the actual text, and udf_yaz is the tool that persists it. That is explicit routing to an alternative, but there is no guidance on when this tool is inappropriate or how it relates to uslup_liste/uslup_kaydet.

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