Site bağlamını getir

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already convey safety. The description adds behavioral context by listing what data is returned (languages, theme, API key scope/expiry, page count), which is not fully captured by annotations. It doesn't mention any side effects, but given the read-only hints, the bar is lower. The description adds value by detailing the content of the context.

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, compact sentence in Turkish, listing exactly the key information: what is retrieved (store, theme, API key scope, page count) and the usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded with the core content and ends with the directive.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, but annotations are comprehensive (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description explains what data is returned and when to call it. Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter tool, the description is complete enough. It doesn't describe return format, but without an output schema, that's acceptable for such a simple tool. The 'call before others' guidance is the key contextual information.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, which is trivially satisfied. The description adds value by explaining what the tool retrieves, which isn't parameter-related but still useful for understanding the output. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 retrieves site context: store languages, active theme data (themeId/merchantThemeId/domain), API key scope/expiry, and page count. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly covering site-level context, whereas siblings focus on specific components/pages. However, the title is in Turkish (Site bağlamını getir) while description is in Turkish as well, which is coherent but not in English.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Diğer araçlardan önce çağırın' (Call before other tools), providing clear when-to-use guidance. This is a strong usage directive, distinguishing it as a prerequisite step. No alternatives are named, but the instruction is unambiguous.

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