Şu an ne çalıyor?

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description doesn't need to carry that burden. It adds value by disclosing the two pieces of state returned (connected channel and current track), but says nothing about what happens when nothing is playing or no channel is joined.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the two resources it reveals. It is appropriately sized, with no filler, though it offers no additional structure beyond that one clause.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only query with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the call returns. The only real gap is the empty-state behavior when the bot is idle or not in a channel.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantics to explain and the description correctly offers none. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 states a specific verb ('gösterir' / shows) paired with two concrete resources: the voice channel the bot is connected to and the currently playing song. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like play_song or stop_music, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as search_songs, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that a bot must be active in a channel). The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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