play__kanallar

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that Play exposes this data only inside an edit session, that the tool opens and closes the session without committing, that network POST+DELETE traffic occurs even though nothing changes, and that the service account needs version-management permission. This is exactly the kind of hidden side-effect and prerequisite an agent otherwise could not anticipate.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the edit-session caveat. The note is dense but each clause is load-bearing (session behavior, side-effect profile, permission requirement). Slightly long but not padded.

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 description covers what the tool returns (channel/version mapping and rollout percentage), the operational caveat, and the permission prerequisite, which is everything an agent needs for a single-parameter read tool with no output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (paket_adi) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics including its example. The description adds no format or naming guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists the app's release channels (internal, alpha, beta, production) and the versions within each, plus rollout percentage. An agent can distinguish it from play__uygulamalar or the appstore__surumler sibling without opening a schema.

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 the context (auditing which version sits on which channel and to what audience share), but never states when to prefer it over siblings like play__uygulamalar or magaza__genel_bakis, and offers no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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