translate_texts

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers automatic behavior, language support, and source language auto-detection. It does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits, max text length, or cost, which would improve transparency. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 clear purpose but includes a verbose 'AUTOMATIC BEHAVIOR' section that could be more concise. While informative, it contains redundant instructions (e.g., repeat of example) that could be streamlined.

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?

The description lacks details on the output format (e.g., array of translated texts, order, metadata), error handling, or limits. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap. It partially compensates with an example but falls short of completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing all supported languages (beyond the schema's examples) and showing parameter usage in a concrete example, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 translates text strings to a target language using AI. It specifies the verb 'translate' and resource 'text strings', and distinguishes from siblings like translate_excel which handles file-level operations. The example further clarifies the scope.

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 the tool automatically without asking, including a worked example. However, it does not mention alternative tools like translate_excel or conditions where this tool should not be used, leaving some ambiguity.

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