gloss_to_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the tool transforms a gloss into a script with estimated times, but does not disclose error handling, prerequisites, side effects, or output format. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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: one sentence plus a short phrase, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks important context: output structure, estimation method, input validation, and edge cases. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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% as both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the transformation purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 transforms a gloss into a script with estimated times, and mentions suitable use cases (videos, lessons, interpreters). It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling tools like text_to_gloss or validate_gloss.

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 a vague usage context ('Ideal para vídeos, aulas gravadas e intérpretes') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor alternatives to consider among sibling tools.

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