build_panel

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect (writes Parquet) plus a return shape (path, dimensions, skipped items). However it omits where files land, whether existing panels are overwritten, and what 'atlananlar' (skipped) means operationally — all important for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no filler. It is efficient, though at the cost of the parameter and behavioral detail noted above.

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?

Three parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema; the description partially covers the return value but leaves the start/end date semantics and write behavior unexplained. For a tool that creates persistent artifacts, this is under-specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely fails: it only alludes to 'sector' via 'Sektörün'. The start and end parameters — including their date format, defaults, and whether end is exclusive or optional — are never mentioned in the description or the schema.

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 (üretir = builds), a specific resource (aylık panel from the sector's macro features), and the materialization target (Parquet). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fetch_series or list_sectors, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus fetch_series or discover_series, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the word 'panel' and 'Parquet'e yazar' that this is a batch materialization step rather than a data-read step.

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