Nicht übersetzte Inhalte finden

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the core function without revealing behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, how it handles unpublished or draft posts, whether results are limited, or what the response structure looks like. For a listing tool, basic read-only behavior is implied, but nothing beyond that is disclosed, leaving significant gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Findet Posts/Seiten ohne Übersetzung') and qualifies the scope ('in einer bestimmten Sprache'). There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to meaning. It is efficiently structured.

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's relative simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a minimal but adequate context. However, it lacks clarification on what 'without translation' precisely includes (e.g., which content statuses are considered, how partial translations are treated) and does not hint at the response format. With many sibling tools, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the current description is not inadequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters like sourceLanguage and targetLanguage, though it does clarify that the tool works on posts/pages, which aligns with the postType parameter. The interplay between language parameters is left to the schema, and the description adds no extra semantic insight.

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 uses a specific verb 'Findet' (finds) and clearly identifies the resource: posts/pages without translation in a specific language. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ml_translation_status (which likely reports overall translation status) and ml_duplicate_for_translation (which creates duplicates). The scope is precise: listing content lacking a translation into a given language.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to find posts/pages that lack a translation in a specific target language. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to infer appropriate usage. A score of 4 is warranted because there is no 'when not to use' guidance, but the core use case is explicit.

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