poem_translate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool parses and validates, and returns a structured brief, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors like what happens on validation failure or whether the operation is read-only, though parsing/validating implies no side effects.

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, using three sentences plus a target list. The 'YOU' and 'The tool handles...' lines are valuable because they clarify the division of labor between the tool and the LLM. Minor redundancy ('Parses...validates' vs 'handles parsing and validation') is acceptable.

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 explains the overall workflow well, but with no output schema, it does not describe the structure or content of the translation brief, which is critical for the LLM to use it effectively. It also omits error-handling behavior for invalid POEM content. More detail would make it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a supported-targets list that supplements the 'target' parameter, but it does not add meaningful detail about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as the structure of the translation brief.

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 with a specific verb ('Prepare a .poem spec for translation') and elaborates that it parses, validates, and returns a translation brief. This distinguishes it from sibling tools poem_read and poem_validate, which focus on reading and validation alone.

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 clear context: use this tool to prepare a translation brief, then the LLM uses that brief to generate code. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like poem_validate, but it clarifies the tool handles validation within the translation workflow, implying the correct usage.

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