surucu_iletisim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose whether this initiates actual calls/messages, requires permissions, has rate limits, costs, or what happens on execution. For a communication tool with real-world effects, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient Turkish sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'aktif yolculukta' sets context, 'şoförle iletişime geç' states action, and '(ara/mesaj)' clarifies methods. No wasted words or redundant 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 4-parameter communication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after tool execution (e.g., call initiated, message sent, confirmation returned), error conditions, or real-world implications. The complexity warrants more complete behavioral context than provided.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: 'ara/mesaj' hints at 'iletisim_turu' enum values but doesn't explain parameter relationships or when 'mesaj' is required. It doesn't compensate for the 25% coverage gap for 'saglayici'.

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 action ('aktif yolculukta şoförle iletişime geç') and resource (driver during active trip), with specific verbs 'ara/mesaj' indicating communication methods. It distinguishes from siblings like 'yolculuk_durumu' (status check) or 'yolculuk_iptal' (cancellation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other communication tools since none exist.

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 implies usage context ('aktif yolculukta' - during active trip) but doesn't specify when to use this vs alternatives like 'yolculuk_durumu' for status updates or prerequisites. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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