detect_text_language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses output format (top 5 matches with confidence scores) and supported language count (18). However, it omits details on error handling, performance characteristics, or behavior with very short or empty text.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds unique information: first defines action, second details output and scope. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 the essential aspects of language detection (output format, language count) and an output schema exists to detail return values. Minor gaps remain: listing the 18 supported languages or handling edge cases like multiple languages in one text would improve 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It only repeats 'text' from the schema without adding constraints like length limits or encoding. Baseline is lowered due to low coverage, and the description adds minimal value.

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?

Clear verb 'detect' and resource 'language from text' are stated. The description specifies returns 'top 5 matches with confidence scores' and 'Supports 18 languages', distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_is_english which only checks English.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_is_english or other text analysis tools. The description implies usage for language detection but does not mention conditions or exclusions.

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