get_translation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of returning has_translation=false when no translation exists. However, it does not cover other aspects like read-only nature, authorization, or performance implications.

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 very short and front-loads the purpose. However, it is too sparse—every sentence is minimal but could benefit from additional context about the parameter or usage. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., whether it's a raw string or part of an object). The mention of has_translation=false implies an object, but it is not explicit. Given sibling tools, more context on integrating returned data is needed.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description does not explain the data_id parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context. This provides no value beyond the raw 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 states it returns the Korean translation text of a writing and specifies behavior when translation is absent (has_translation=false). Although it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_fulltext, the verb 'returns' and the resource 'translation' are specific enough.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like get_fulltext for original text or any prerequisites. The description implies retrieval but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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