rapor_indir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals the file storage location, not overwrite behavior, directory creation, error handling on missing reports, or required credentials. This is insufficient for a file-downloading tool.

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 two short sentences, directly stating the action and the storage structure, with zero redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having 3 optional parameters and no annotations, the description provides the core functionality and storage convention. However, it lacks edge-case behavior (missing files, overwrites) and does not explain the broader workflow context, leaving some gaps.

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 schema already provides comprehensive parameter descriptions with defaults and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the file path template ({tarih}-{kurum}-{tip}.pdf), which is a minor extension. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: 'Download current report from brokerage and save to date-based folder', with an explicit storage path pattern. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for downloading reports but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Sibling tools like araci_kurum_listesi or konsensus_analiz are not referenced, leaving the usage context implicit.

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