translate_all_mods_in_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about side effects: whether jars are modified in place, whether existing translations are backed up, whether the translation backend imposes rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the force_retranslate flag hints at overwrite behavior.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is terse with no filler. The trailing Returns line is minimal, which is acceptable since an output schema exists, though it adds little.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all four parameters are covered. What is missing is the mutation profile of a batch file-processing tool with no annotations: overwrite/backup behavior and any safety or ordering caveats an agent should know before running it.

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 0% (titles only), so the description must compensate, and it does define all four parameters meaningfully: directory path, glob matching pattern, entries per batch, and force-retranslate. It does not explain the acceptable values or performance implications of batch_size, but coverage of the semantics is solid.

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+resource: batch-translating all mod jars under a directory. The scope word ('all mods in a directory' / 目录下所有) implicitly distinguishes it from the singular translate_mod sibling. It stops short of naming the siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus preview_mod, dry_run_mod, or translate_mod. The batch scope is implied by the name and purpose line, but there is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion telling an agent which tool to pick.

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