get_translation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that translation is null for untranslated chunks, that the alignment verdict appears only when merged translation is enabled, and that the response echoes book_id and title. This covers key behavioral quirks well, though it does not fully address error or edge conditions.

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 five sentences, each carrying a distinct useful fact, with the purpose front-loaded. Parentheticals add explanatory value rather than padding, though the overall text is dense and could be tightened slightly.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers parameter provenance, null behavior, conditional alignment verdict, and response verification. It could be more explicit about when to prefer this over sibling tools, but it is largely 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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains chunk_id as a stable, book-scoped cache id obtained from list_chunks and never reused across books. It gives less direct guidance on book_id, but the verification note about the echoed book_id partially compensates.

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 a specific read operation on one chunk and names the data returned: full translation and alignment state. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_original (source text) and write_chunk (write operation).

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 for correct use: chunk_id comes from list_chunks, is book-scoped, and must never be reused across books. It also advises verifying book_id against the echoed response. It does not explicitly name when to avoid this tool in favor of a sibling, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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