Translate text

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 discloses specific behavioral traits: auto-detection reports the detected language and confidence, format 'html' with alternatives > 0 is rejected before the request, and with 'text' alternatives are included only when the response carries them, with an explicit note otherwise. This goes beyond schema details and covers important edge cases, though it does not address error handling or authentication.

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 a single dense paragraph with no filler. Every sentence adds relevant operational detail (auto-detection, format restrictions, alternatives behavior). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers edge cases efficiently. Slightly long but each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors needed for correct invocation: auto-detection, html limitations, and alternatives handling. It does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., that it returns translated text), but that is implied. It adequately covers the tool's complexity, though it could mention response structure or error handling for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the behavior of 'source=auto' (detection and reporting), the rejection of html with alternatives, and the conditional inclusion of alternative translations. This adds value over the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Translate') and a specific resource ('text using a self-hosted LibreTranslate instance'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'detect' (language detection) and 'languages' (listing codes). It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 gives useful usage context (e.g., setting source to 'auto', the format restrictions, and how alternatives behave) but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., 'use detect for language detection' or 'use languages to list codes'). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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