ders_programi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns only links and announced notes rather than schedule data itself, and only the BBTF page layout is currently supported. It says nothing about failure behavior when an unsupported faculty is passed, or about the shape/size of the returned links.

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-loaded with the core statement, followed by an important caveat, then args. Roughly three dense sentences/sections with little waste; the prose caveat sentence is slightly long but each clause adds information.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return nature (links + notes), the single-dependency limitation, and both parameters. What remains missing (link format, empty-result behavior) is minor at this complexity level.

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: fakulte is documented as defaulting to bilgisayar with only BBTF layout supported, and program is documented as a name-substring filter with a concrete example ('yapay zeka'). Minor gap: no guidance on matching case or partial-word behavior.

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?

States a specific resource (the faculty's current course schedule) and what it returns: program/class-based table links plus important notes. It also clarifies the tool is only a pointer to externally hosted tables, which sharpens its identity. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like ders_bilgisi 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 through the args explanation (empty fakulte defaults to bilgisayar/BBTF, program is a filter substring with an example like 'yapay zeka'). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ders_bilgisi, mufredat, or akademik_takvim, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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