fakulte_sayfasi

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two fallback behaviors (empty konu yields the whole page list, empty fakulte defaults to bilgisayar) — information not present in the schema, whose defaults are just null. However, it never clarifies whether matching pages are returned as a list of links/titles or as page content, and says nothing about result size or format.

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 short blocks: a purpose line followed by a clearly labeled Args section, with the discovery hint placed where it matters. The trailing ellipsis in the opening line is slightly loose but costs nothing.

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 two-parameter, zero-required lookup with no output schema and no annotations, an agent has everything needed: what the tool covers, how to discover available topics, and the faculty default. No structural gap remains beyond fine-grained return-format detail, which is minor for this tool type.

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: konu is explained as a menu search term with example values, and fakulte is given as a concrete enumerated list plus its default. The remaining gap is that the enum is prose-only rather than enforced, and matching semantics (exact vs. substring) for konu are unstated.

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 a specific resource (faculty site information pages) and enumerates representative content types (internship rules, FAQ, Erasmus, exchange programs), which clearly separates it from topic-specific siblings like yemekhane_menusu or akademik_takvim. The retrieval verb itself is only implied by the noun phrase, so it falls short of the explicit verb+resource pairing a 5 requires.

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 gives concrete operating guidance: calling with an empty konu returns the full page list and is recommended first to discover what can be asked. That is a clear usage context, but no when-not conditions or explicit alternatives among the sibling tools are stated.

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