kaeris_add_language

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this 'CALLS THE TRANSLATION API (same as kaeris_translate_file)' and is not free unlike local-only siblings. It explains parameter effects (tone, icu, keep) and the meaning of context with a concrete example. It also states the return format. This is richly transparent beyond just saying it translates.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place due to the tool's complexity (9 params, cost implications, alternatives). It is structured with a clear 'Args:' section and a 'Returns:' section, front-loading the key usage guidance and API call warning. No redundancy.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage triggers, alternatives, parameter semantics, and return value. It even includes guidance on how to obtain context (from reading the repo). An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: every parameter gets an explanation and often an example (source: 'locales/en.json', lang: 'de', tone: 'formal'/'casual', icu: 'preserves plural/select syntax', keep: 'brand/product names', context: with the 'Bank' example, api_key/openrouter_key as auth overrides). This fully covers all 9 parameters.

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 opens with 'Bootstrap a BRAND-NEW target locale by translating the entire source file into it and writing the result,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It further distinguishes from siblings by stating when to use it (when a language has no locale file at all in 'missing_files') and contrasts it with kaeris_translate_file for existing files.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this when kaeris_scan_repo/kaeris_status show a language with no locale file at all yet.' It also gives an alternative: 'For an EXISTING locale that's just missing a few keys, prefer kaeris_translate_file(..., only_new=True)' and highlights the cost difference (API call vs local-only). This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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