count_translatable_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool counts (translatable cells) and excludes (formulas, numbers, dates, empty cells). It gives important file-handling instructions, including not showing base64 content to the user and using resource URI for uploaded files. This provides good transparency, though it could mention error cases or performance.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage instructions. It is fairly concise given the need to clarify file-handling nuances, but could be slightly tighter. The structure is logical: purpose, what it counts, usage instructions, important note.

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 counting tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to use it, and key behavioral notes. It does not explain error handling or return format, but the return value (count) is simple. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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 schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by explaining the usage scenarios for each parameter (local files, uploaded files, base64) and providing the critical 'provide either/or' instruction. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, aiding correct tool invocation.

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 tool's purpose: counting translatable cells in an Excel file. It specifies what is counted (text) and excluded (formulas, numbers, dates, empty cells). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like translate_excel (which performs translation) or estimate_translation_cost (which likely estimates cost), making its function unambiguous.

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 explicit instructions on when to use each parameter (local file, uploaded file, base64) and states that either file_path or file_content_base64 should be provided, not both. It also notes the tool is useful for estimating translation scope and cost. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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