veri_durumu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'shows' status, implying a non-mutating read operation, but does not explicitly mention whether it requires any setup, permissions, or how data is refreshed. The lack of explicit read-only confirmation is a minor gap, but the nature of a status tool makes it largely self-evident.

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: two short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted wording or repetition.

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 is simple (0 params) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It explains what data is displayed (dates, counts, directory summary), which is sufficient for a status tool. Slightly more specificity on what 'general status' encompasses would improve completeness, but given the low complexity, it is nearly 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 and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools. The description adds no parameter information, but there are no parameters to describe, so it fully meets expectations.

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's purpose: showing the general status of downloaded reports and data directory. It specifies the exact information shown (dates, counts, directory summary), and this distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like portfoy_risk_analizi or stres_testi_simulasyonu.

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 checking download status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, making this a reasonable but not fully explicit context.

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