translate

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

The description discloses the return format as a JSON object with the translated text, which is useful behavioral context. There are no annotations, but it does not cover error behavior, restrictions, or whether source and target must differ, leaving some 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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It fronts the main action and includes only essential additional guidance about language codes and return format, with no fluff.

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 simple translation tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameter roles, and return structure. It does not discuss edge cases like invalid codes or source-target equality, but the pointer to list_supported_languages helps mitigate the need for more detail.

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?

The description explains the role of each parameter (text, source, target) in context, but schema description coverage is 0%. It does not explain the meanings of the enum values (e.g., bam_Latn), relying on a pointer to list_supported_languages, which partially compensates for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Translate') and operands (text, source, target language). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as transcribe and text_to_speech by specifying the exact task of language translation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (translation) and explicitly directs users to list_supported_languages for valid codes, establishing a prerequisite. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or explicitly compare with alternatives like transcribe.

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