Trendyol API işlemlerini listele

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the output contains (operationId, HTTP method, path, short description) and the scope of sections, which is valuable since no output schema exists; it does not mention size or pagination limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, followed by the section enumeration that scopes coverage. No filler, though the trailing category list is somewhat long.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned fields and section scope. However, it omits how this fits the workflow relative to siblings (e.g., discover here, then get_operation/call_api) and says nothing about pagination or result size, leaving gaps for a catalog-listing tool.

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 50%: the 'filter' parameter is documented in the schema but the 'type' enum (all/read/write) has no description. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the half of the schema that is undocumented.

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 (list) and resource (all Trendyol API operations) and even enumerates the fields returned (operationId, HTTP method, path, short description) plus the covered sections. It is clearly distinguishable from get_operation or search_docs by being a full-catalog listing, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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: listing all operations by section suggests a discovery/browse entry point, but the description never states when to prefer this over trendyol_search_docs or trendyol_get_operation, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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