taksi_cagir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('taksi çağır') but does not disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation (e.g., confirmation, booking status). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence in Turkish ('Belirtilen konumlar arası taksi çağır') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with a clear action, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output expectations, which are crucial for a taxi-booking tool that likely involves mutations and external interactions. The high schema coverage helps but does not compensate for missing behavioral and contextual details.

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 high at 89%, with most parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'baslangic_enlem' as 'Başlangıç konumu enlemi'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying location-based inputs, so it relies on the schema for details. With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but does not detract either.

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 'Belirtilen konumlar arası taksi çağır' clearly states the tool's purpose as calling a taxi between specified locations, using a specific verb ('çağır') and resource ('taksi'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ucret_tahmini' (fare estimation) or 'yolculuk_iptal' (trip cancellation) by focusing on initiating a ride, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'surucu_iletisim' (driver communication), which might be related but not directly overlapping.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ucret_tahmini' for fare checks or 'yolculuk_iptal' for cancellations. It implies usage for booking a taxi between locations but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone without clear direction.

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