ruvltra_code_translate

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. It reveals only that the tool translates code; it says nothing about whether code is transmitted to an external service, how timeoutMs behaves, whether sourceLanguage is auto-detected when omitted, or what side effects (if any) occur. For a tool that likely processes user-submitted code externally, this is a significant omission.

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?

Sixteen words across two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no repetition of schema fields or fluff. Both sentences earn their place despite the second being a minor quality tip.

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?

Minimum viable: an agent can assemble a correct basic call (code + targetLanguage), and the presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. However, optional-parameter semantics (timeoutMs, sourceLanguage detection) and behavioral traits are absent, and with no annotations the description is the sole source of guidance beyond the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's silence, but it only loosely implies the roles of code, sourceLanguage, and targetLanguage via the phrase 'translate code between programming languages.' timeoutMs is entirely unexplained, and there is no guidance on whether sourceLanguage is required or auto-detected.

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 states a specific verb (translate) and resource (code) with a clear outcome (moving between programming languages). The operation is unmistakably distinct from the sibling set (generate, review, refactor, explain, test, fix, complete), so an agent can select this tool correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named; an agent must infer usage from the tool's name and purpose. The tip to provide instructions and context in English is a quality suggestion, not usage-selection guidance, and it references inputs (instructions/context) that do not appear as parameters in the schema.

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