translate_swedish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys bidirectionality but says nothing about how direction is resolved, output format, confidence, or behavior with unknown words — all relevant for a translation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability followed by the input expectation. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations it should do more to cover direction handling, output expectations, and sibling differentiation.

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%, with the 'from' enum and 'text' both fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'either language' merely echoes the bidirectional capability already expressed by the 'from' enum, adding no new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Translate') and a bounded resource pair ('between Swedish and English'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling 'ask_swedish', which could plausibly also produce Swedish-language output, leaving that overlap to inference.

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 phrase 'Provide a word or phrase in either language' implies the tool's input scope (short units, bidirectional), which is implicit usage guidance. It never states when to prefer this over 'ask_swedish' or 'get_vocabulary', and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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