yolculuk_gecmisi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'listele' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just two words ('Geçmiş yolculukları listele'), which efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential 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 list tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (journey objects with what fields?), doesn't address authentication needs, and provides no context about the 'saglayici' parameter's purpose despite its enum values including specific providers. The description should do more given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting documentation.

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 50% (only the 'limit' parameter has a description). The description doesn't mention either parameter, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. With 2 parameters and partial schema coverage, the baseline is 3 since the schema does some work but not all.

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 'Geçmiş yolculukları listele' clearly states the purpose as listing past journeys, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'yolculuk_durumu' (journey status) or 'yolculuk_iptal' (journey cancellation), leaving ambiguity about its unique role in the system.

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. With sibling tools like 'yolculuk_durumu' (for current status) and 'yolculuk_iptal' (for cancellation), there's no indication of when this list tool is appropriate versus those other journey-related tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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