libretranslate_translate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no note on rate limits, self-hosted endpoint requirements, offline behavior, or what happens when source detection is used. Calling LibreTranslate 'open source' is characterization, not behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. It is not bloated, but it is also thin enough that brevity comes at the cost of content.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple competing translator siblings, the description omits the routing logic and behavioral context an agent needs. It is technically accurate but not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

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 text, source, and target are already documented with defaults (auto-detect, en). The description adds nothing beyond that and does not explain language-code format or auto-detect semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Translate) and resource (text between languages) and identifies the backing service (LibreTranslate, open source). It does not differentiate itself from sibling translators like deepl_translate_text, mymemory_translate, or fun_translate, which an agent must choose between.

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 guidance on when to use this translator versus the other translate tools in the catalog, nor on prerequisites such as needing a reachable LibreTranslate endpoint. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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