translate_sinhala_instruction

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 states the transformation and automatic context inference, but it does not mention input validation behavior (e.g., if input is not Sinhala/Singlish) or output format. The description is adequate but lacks details about potential limitations or side effects.

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple translation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is relatively complete. It covers the input, transformation, and output context. However, it lacks details about error handling or behavior on invalid input, which 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?

The input schema already describes the parameter as a Sinhala/Singlish instruction with a max length. The description adds meaning by specifying the output: a precise English technical prompt for an AI coding agent, and mentions automatic context inference, which provides additional context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Translate'), resource ('Sinhala or Singlish instruction'), and target output ('precise English technical prompt for an AI coding agent'). It also mentions automatic context inference, distinguishing it from its only sibling, health_check.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to use this tool when it has a non-English instruction for the AI agent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it (e.g., if the input is already English), nor does it provide alternatives. Given the sibling is health_check, the need is lower, but still a minor gap.

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