bildirim_kuyrugu

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: reads do not count as delivery, expired leases become uncertain and are not auto-resent, lease keys are used with bildirim_sonucu, and key visibility differs between active and uncertain records. Annotations already cover non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive status, but the description contributes critical lease-state semantics rather than repeating them.

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?

Front-loads the two core modes in the opening sentence, then adds only operationally relevant lease and key details. The density is justified by the non-obvious leasing semantics; no sentence is 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?

Given no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is strong on lease-state behavior and key handling but incomplete for callers needing to understand abonelik_id, sinir, kiralama_saniye, and the full return shape. The core queue workflow is adequately covered, though not the entire parameter surface.

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 explain four parameters. It semantically clarifies the islem modes (listele/al) and hints at kiralama_saniye through “süreli”, but never explains abonelik_id or sinir and does not give parameter names or formats.

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 first sentence specifies two concrete operations—listele shows without consuming, al leases ready notifications to one worker for a limited time—so the resource and verbs are unambiguous. It also references bildirim_sonucu for completing a lease, helping separate this queue operation from the result-handling sibling.

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?

Explains the choice between listele and al by contrasting non-consuming display with leased consumption, and gives the follow-up call pattern to bildirim_sonucu. It does not spell out when not to use the tool or compare it with other list siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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