Search Yok Tez By Anabilim Dali

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses several critical traits: the lack of full-text/abstract keyword support, the support for specific filters, the ~2000 result cap per department, and the distinction between 'total_results_found' and 'results_in_batch'. It also explains the merge/deduplication behavior. This goes well beyond what an agent could infer from the schema alone.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose. The following paragraph distinguishes from a sibling, the workflow is clearly numbered, and the note about result caps is placed last. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise despite covering multiple nuanced aspects.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, an output schema, and a non-trivial workflow), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the essential workflow (getting codes first), the merging/deduplication, the result cap limitation, and the meaning of the output fields. The output schema is present, so the description doesn't need to describe return values. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value for the key parameter 'anabilim_dali_codes' by explaining its origin (from 'list_yok_tez_anabilim_dali') and the merge/deduplication behavior. It also summarizes the filter types ('thesis title, author, advisor and index terms, plus the usual type/language/permission/status/year filters'), which complements the schema without duplicating it. However, it doesn't elaborate on each parameter individually, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search YÖK theses filtered by department (Anabilim Dalı) code(s).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately differentiates from the sibling 'search_yok_tez_detailed' by noting the lack of full-text keyword support but presence of title/author/advisor filters. This allows an agent to distinguish it from other search tools without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it contrasts with 'search_yok_tez_detailed' on capabilities, and outlines a concrete workflow (call 'list_yok_tez_anabilim_dali' first to obtain codes, then pass them here). It also states that multiple codes are merged and deduplicated, which is essential for correct usage. No ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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