taksi_turleri_getir

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 it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or describes the output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, clear sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simple purpose (listing), one parameter with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use it versus siblings and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations regarding behavioral traits like authentication or output format, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'saglayici' (provider) fully documented in the schema including enum values and default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('listele' meaning 'list') and the resource ('mevcut taksi türlerini ve özelliklerini' meaning 'current taxi types and features'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'taksi_cagir' (call taxi) or 'ucret_tahmini' (fare estimate), which would require a 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone. This is a significant gap in usage guidance.

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