donanimhaber_section

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the limit bound (1..50) but says nothing about result ordering (recency vs relevance), pagination beyond the limit, or what happens with an unknown slug.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the parameter constraint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. For a two-parameter fetch tool it is nearly sufficient, but ordering behavior and failure mode on an invalid slug remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description compensates well: it explains slug format with five concrete examples and states the 1..50 range for limit. The only gap is that the default (10) and the exact slug grammar are left implicit.

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 ('Articles in one donanimhaber.com section/topic') and identifies the required selector as a slug. The parenthetical pointer to donanimhaber_sections partially differentiates it from siblings like donanimhaber_latest and donanimhaber_search_news, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 usefully tells the agent where slugs come from (donanimhaber_sections) and gives concrete slug examples, which is real workflow guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over donanimhaber_latest or donanimhaber_search_news, nor any exclusion condition.

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