translate_texts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses usage of Gemini and returns format '{lang: [texts]}', but does not discuss side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. The 'break-glass' label implies caution but not specifics.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. Key points are front-loaded: verb, resource, scope, and output format. Every sentence adds 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?

Although output schema exists (not shown), description gives only return format. Missing details like language code format, text length limits, or error behavior. Tool has 2 params with zero documentation, leaving agents underinformed.

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?

Input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). Description fails to explain any parameter semantics, such as valid source_language values or text format constraints. Schema coverage is effectively zero, and description provides no compensation.

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?

Description clearly states verb (translate), resource (list of texts), and scope (one source to all 8 languages). It also distinguishes itself as a 'break-glass' tool and notes its parallel to another phase, making its purpose very clear and unique among siblings.

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?

Description includes 'break-glass' hint indicating emergency use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or what preconditions must hold. It mentions parallelism but no direct alternatives.

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