translate_code_comment

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions extraction and translation but fails to specify side effects (e.g., does it modify original code?), return format, or whether the translation is inserted back into code. The phrase 'basic text extraction' further undercuts clarity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, but the parenthetical '(basic text extraction)' is confusing and adds unnecessary ambiguity. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for 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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should explain the output format, default behaviors for optional parameters (dialect, provider), and scope of translation. It provides none of this, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 input schema already provides clear parameter descriptions for code, dialect, and provider. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema offers, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Extract and translate code comments (basic text extraction)' clearly states the action (extract and translate) and the resource (code comments), distinguishing it from sibling translation tools that target whole texts. However, the parenthetical '(basic text extraction)' introduces ambiguity about whether it only extracts or also translates.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like translate_text or translate_markdown. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that it is for code comments.

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