akademik_takvim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the important behavioral traits: the data comes from an official PDF and has known gaps (midterm dates absent), plus a terminology mapping ('bitirme sınavı' = final). It omits how results are shaped or whether failures/parse errors are surfaced, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, data caveats follow immediately, and the Args block is scannable one-liners. No sentence is padding — even the 'ozet' note earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 five-parameter read tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data limitations and every parameter's meaning. It falls short of complete by not describing the returned event record shape beyond the 'ozet' summary field and by leaving kategori's allowed values unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: sorgu (substring of event name), donem ("guz"/"bahar", empty = both), kategori (event group filter), yaklasan (future dates only, nearest first) and sinir (max rows) are all explained. The one gap is that the seven kategori enum values present in the schema are not enumerated or explained.

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 names the exact resource and scope: the İÜ associate/undergraduate 2026-2027 academic calendar, sourced from the official PDF. Combined with the argument list it is clear this queries calendar events, though no explicit verb ('sorgula/listele') is used and no sibling tool is named for 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?

It provides a genuine usage caveat — midterm exam dates are set by units, so the calendar only holds the announcement deadline — which implicitly tells the agent when this tool will not answer a question. However, there is no explicit routing to or away from siblings such as duyurular_listesi or ders_programi.

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