translate_contract

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'Async' (asynchronous) and 'Team tier' (access requirement), but lacks details on response format, job polling, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence with core purpose followed by succinct cues on requirements and async nature. No redundant words; efficiently front-loaded.

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 3-param translation tool with no output schema, description is moderately complete. It mentions async behavior but doesn't explain the return type or job handling. Lacks details on error cases or size limits.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by listing supported languages ('Solidity ↔ Vyper ↔ Move ↔ Anchor'), which hints at allowed values beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Translate a smart contract between languages' and lists specific languages (Solidity, Vyper, Move, Anchor). Verb and resource are explicit, and no sibling tool performs translation, so differentiation is clear.

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?

Specifies required parameters and mentions 'Async, Team tier', which gives usage context. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though uniqueness among siblings makes it implicitly the only translation tool.

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