spk_yasal_uyum_denetimi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'raporlar' (reports) on legal protection provisions, which suggests a read-only audit, but it does not explicitly confirm that no data is modified or mention any permissions or side effects. It adds useful detail about the legal areas covered, but stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds essential legal scope. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient for an 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?

The tool has no parameters and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It clearly specifies the legal areas covered, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. Slight gap: it does not clarify what 'the system' refers to or any prerequisites, but given the zero-parameter nature, it is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 uses the specific verb 'denetle' (audit) and clearly identifies the resource: the system's compliance with the Capital Markets Law and SPK Communiqués. It further narrows scope to specific legal areas (Investment Advisory license, Insider Trading, Market Manipulation), making it distinct from sibling tools like kap_son_bildirimler or portfoy_risk_analizi.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a legal compliance audit of the system under Turkish capital markets regulations is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the legal specificity (Tebliğ III-52.1, Madde 106/107) provides strong contextual guidance for an agent.

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