assemble_translated

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 that the tool runs asynchronously in the background and that the caller must check status via check_assembly_status. This is key behavioral context. It does not detail side effects or error modes, but the async disclosure is valuable.

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 efficiently structured: a purpose statement, an async note with follow-up instruction, and a concise args list. Every sentence adds information without redundancy or padding.

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 tool is asynchronous with 2 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the async flow, the two parameters, and the follow-up check step. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. Minor missing context: no explicit prerequisite that translated segments must be saved, but that is implied by the workflow.

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 explains session_dir as the path returned from extract_segments and glossary_json as an optional glossary JSON string created during translation. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names and defaults.

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 'Creates the final PDF with translated segments' – a clear, specific verb+resource combination. It is distinguished from siblings like check_assembly_status (status check) and extract_segments (extraction) by its unique purpose of assembly.

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 clearly indicates when to use it: after translating segments, and explicitly instructs to call check_assembly_status with the returned session_dir to monitor completion. It also ties session_dir to extract_segments. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the workflow context is clear.

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