translate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: when data/translations/*.csv is absent, available=False and reverse lookup by translation stops working while search still functions. That is useful degradation info, but permission needs, limit behavior, and result format are untouched.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the data-source caveat following. No filler, though slightly more could have been said about the undocumented limit without harming brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still names the 'available' flag that appears in that output. Purpose, data source, and failure-mode behavior are covered; the only real gap is 'limit' and sibling routing.

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. It does add meaning for 'text' by explaining the input may be either a key or a translation, which the bare schema does not convey. The 'limit' parameter (default 20) is never explained anywhere, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 operation on a specific resource: bidirectional lookup between a localization key and its translation. The reversal ('给 key 返回译文，给译文返回 key') is precisely stated, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'search' tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('查询本地化词条'), and the note about search remaining usable when the file is missing gives a partial operational condition. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against the sibling 'search' tool.

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