detect_language

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool is fast and does not use a model forward pass, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not state what the tool returns (though an output schema exists), error behavior, or any limitations. For a simple detection tool, the disclosed behavior is minimal but not misleading.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and includes a notable efficiency claim. There is zero redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 has an output schema and a single simple parameter, the description is nearly complete for calling it correctly. However, it lacks any guidance on when to use it and does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., very short text, ambiguous scripts). The core purpose is covered, but the lack of usage context and parameter explanation leaves some 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?

The schema defines one required parameter 'text' as a string, and the description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond that. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining what kind of text is expected (e.g., encoding, language range, length). The parameter is straightforward, but the description adds no value over the schema.

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 verb 'Detect' and the resource 'script and language of a text', which is specific and distinguishable from the sibling tools (decide, classify, etc.). It also adds a distinctive performance and implementation detail ('sub-millisecond, no model forward pass') that sets it apart.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It does not mention any sibling tools or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The purpose is clear, but usage context is entirely absent.

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