Udf Yaz

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 does disclose useful traits beyond structure — output is a local file, it is unsigned (imzasız), and bold/italic/tables are preserved — but says nothing about overwrite behavior, path/permission errors, or whether the file is created vs. replaced.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and packs the two most decision-relevant facts (opens in UYAP Editor, unsigned) plus the formatting guarantee. No filler.

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 return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key behavioral facts for a 3-parameter write tool. However, with zero annotation coverage it leaves mutation-critical details (overwrite of an existing .udf, error conditions, signature caveat implications) unstated.

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 filename, markdown, and output_dir are already documented with defaults and meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or path semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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+resource pair: writes Markdown text to a local .udf file, and adds the notable outcome that it opens in UYAP Editor unsigned. It is distinguishable from udf_oku (reads) and docx_to_udf (converts DOCX), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should use this when it has a Markdown petition to persist as .udf. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. docx_to_udf or when-not-to-use statement, and no prerequisites given.

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