warm_up_translator

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

With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses that it downloads assets/models and returns a status dictionary. It also implies a side effect of fetching remote resources, which is useful behavioral information for an agent.

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 and front-loaded with the main action, followed by usage timing and return value. No wasted words, all sentences add value.

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 covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to run it, and what it returns, and an output schema covers detailed return values. It could mention network requirements or re-run behavior, but for a simple warm-up tool, it's reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies, and adding no parameter information 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's purpose: to warm up the PDF translator by downloading required assets and models. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like translate_pdf and pdf_get by explicitly positioning it as a preparatory step.

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 provides clear guidance to run this first to avoid timeouts during actual translation, establishing the tool as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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