ders_bilgisi

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 implies a read-only lookup and lists the kinds of information returned, plus the default program behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how multiple matches behave.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool returns and then documents the arguments. Every sentence carries useful information, with no redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly, including argument semantics, the default program, and the content areas returned. Minor gaps remain around result shape and behavior when multiple courses match.

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: both parameters are explained with examples, including that ders accepts a course code or name substring and that program accepts a program-name substring with a default fallback. It stops short of specifying matching sensitivity or handling of multiple matches.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource and operation: retrieving an EBS course syllabus, with the returned content listed as code, ECTS, instructor, purpose, weekly topics, and assessment. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as ders_programi or mufredat.

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 implied by the purpose and by the parameter examples, especially the note that program defaults to Computer Engineering when empty. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over ders_programi or mufredat, and no stated exclusions.

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