Udf Oku

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads a local .udf file and returns Markdown, which tells the agent the input is local and the output is converted content. It does not mention error conditions or file constraints, but for a simple local read that is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the input, the output format, and the intent with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. Annotations cover the read-only nature, the schema covers the path parameter, and the description covers purpose and usage context. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the single 'path' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the file is a local .udf file, which overlaps with the schema's 'UDF dosya yolu' description and does not add syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('okur') and resource ('Yerel .udf dosyasını') plus output format ('Markdown olarak'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like udf_yaz or docx_to_udf, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 parenthetical '(eski dilekçeyi modele göstermek için)' gives a clear usage context: reading an old petition to show to the model. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as udf_yaz for writing or docx_to_udf for converting DOCX.

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