translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a reasonable job: it reveals the result shape (other-language editions/titles), discloses the `limit` clamp with default and max, and warns that popular articles exceed 100 languages. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe pagination/truncation behavior beyond the clamp, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 core definition and the sibling differentiation are front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place. The use-case list ('translation research, cross-language content sourcing, language-coverage analysis') is somewhat enumerative and could be trimmed, but the description is otherwise tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return contents, and it does so at a useful level (other-language titles, e.g. de/fr/es/ja/zh). Combined with the coverage of all three parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; explicit read-only/pagination notes are the only meaningful omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds practical meaning: it explains why `limit` exists ('popular articles can have 100+ language versions') and frames `lang` as the source-language selector that other tools expose one-way. The `limit` default/max is largely a restatement of the schema, so the added value is real but modest.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List all language versions of a Wikipedia article (langlinks)') and grounds it with a concrete example ('Tyrannosaurus' -> de/fr/es/ja/zh). It also differentiates itself from siblings by contrasting with the one-way `lang` parameter used elsewhere, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

It states clearly when this tool is the right choice: when the caller needs the article's full language coverage to pick a target language to fetch next, and lists concrete scenarios (translation research, cross-language sourcing, coverage analysis). It does not give explicit when-not-to-use exclusions or route to a specific alternative tool, keeping it just short of a 5.

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