translate_mod

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: force_retranslate ignores the cache ('慎用' = use with caution) and batch_size trades speed against request length. It omits permissions, network/API dependency, and whether the original jar is modified.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Every line carries information; no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns note is redundant but harmless. However, for a tool with no annotations that presumably performs network translation and file output, the description never states prerequisites, failure modes, or side effects on disk, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it delivers for all three: jar_path is an absolute path with an example format, batch_size gives the default and its speed/latency tradeoff, and force_retranslate explains the cache-bypass consequence and cautions against it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('translate a single Minecraft mod jar, generate a Chinese resource pack'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its siblings (preview_mod, dry_run_mod) which likely operate on the same kind of input.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus preview_mod, dry_run_mod, or translate_all_mods_in_directory. An agent must infer that a single-jar translate is distinct from a dry-run or batch translate without any explicit routing guidance.

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