gno_hesapla

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: offline operation, AKTS/ECTS-weighted averaging, the default 4.0 scale (AA 4.0 … FF 0), and that results are advisory rather than official. It omits edge-case behavior (unknown letter grades, rounding, what happens if only one of onceki_akts/onceki_gno is given), which keeps it from 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?

The output behavior and offline property are front-loaded in the first two lines, then the weighting/scale rules, then a per-argument block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no 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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema computation tool, the description covers inputs, the weighting rule, the optional new-GPA output, and the official-vs-advisory caveat. It lacks only numeric precision/rounding details and error behavior for malformed grade values.

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% and `dersler` is an untyped object array, so the description is the only source of truth — and it delivers with concrete examples: [{"ad": "Veri Yapıları", "akts": 6, "not": "BB"}] and {"AA": 4, "BA": 3.5, ...}. It also defines onceki_akts and onceki_gno as prior cumulative credits and GPA, adding meaning the bare schema cannot.

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 states a specific verb and resource: computes the semester average from letter grades and, optionally, a new cumulative GPA. None of the sibling tools (yemekhane_menusu, akademik_takvim, ders_bilgisi, mufredat, etc.) do computation, so the tool is easy to tell apart without opening the schema.

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?

The description says the tool works offline and tells the agent to pass `olcek` when the regulation's coefficients differ from the default 4-point table, plus a clear boundary: 'Resmî hesap için OBS/transkript geçerlidir.' It stops short of an explicit 'use this when…' statement, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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