translate_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details ('Sonnet 4.6' model and 'markdown-preserving'), but does not disclose other behaviors like character limits, error handling, or whether source_lang is auto-detected. The markdown-preserving note is valuable but partial.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical for additional traits. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers language count, domain, and a key behavioral trait (markdown-preserving). However, it misses an explicit distinction from translate_report, which would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by framing the task as forestry/policy text and confirming markdown preservation, which aligns with the preserve_markdown parameter, but it does not detail parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as translating forestry/policy text, with a specific verb ('Translate') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning markdown preservation and domain focus, but does not explicitly contrast with the similar translate_report tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus translate_report or others. The name suggests a 'brief' variant, but the description provides no usage context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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