translate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that detection is automatic and translations are context-aware. It says nothing about the return format (one string vs. aligned array of translated blocks), error behavior, or handling of non-translatable blocks, which matters given the array structure.

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 well-formed sentence with no waste and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably compressed to the point of omitting useful detail.

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?

For a 6-parameter, nested-array tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-sentence description leaves the response shape and block-level behavior unexplained. The schema compensates for parameter detail, but the description could do more for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so parameters are already well documented individually. The description adds only the high-level notions of 'language detection' and 'context-aware', which loosely correspond to source_hint and context but do not deepen parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 ('translate text between languages') plus the distinguishing capabilities (language detection, context-aware translation). No siblings exist, so sibling differentiation is not required. Clear but not maximally precise about the text-block/selective-translation model the schema implies.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and there are no sibling tools to compare against. The mention of automatic detection hints at usage but leaves the choice between 'source' and 'source_hint' to inference. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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