translate_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions translating a key but does not explain how the translation is performed (e.g., via API, database lookup, or external service), what happens on failure, whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, with no redundant or verbose elements. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the translation process, return values, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely interacts with a translation system, more context is needed to ensure proper usage and understanding.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of key formats or locale code standards. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 states the tool's purpose as translating a specific translation key to target language(s), which is clear but vague. It specifies the action (translate) and resource (translation key) but lacks detail on what translation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like translate_namespace. The purpose is understandable but not specific enough to distinguish it from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like translate_namespace or analyze_translation_context, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. Usage is implied by the tool name alone, with no explicit instructions.

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