translation_audit

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses integrity flags (suspect_source, nonempty_base), truncation behavior with max_list and _truncated flag, and return format ({passed, summary, results} or {error}). This comprehensively informs the agent about tool effects and outputs.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details parameters and behavior. It is well-structured but slightly verbose; some details like data types could be inferred from the schema. However, every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema and 6 parameters (3 required), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns, the meaning of integrity flags, truncation behavior, and default language handling. No gaps remain for an agent to understand how to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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 meaning for all 6 parameters. It explains that record_id and field_name accept single values or arrays, base_lang defaults to 'en_US', target_langs defaults to all non-base languages, and max_list caps term lists with a truncation flag. This provides essential context beyond the schema.

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 audits translation coverage and integrity for translatable fields across records. It uses specific verbs like 'audit' and 'reports', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like translation_get and translation_update by focusing on auditing rather than retrieval or modification.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool to 'verify a bilingual push in one call and to catch source corruption early', providing clear use cases. It explains flexible parameter acceptance (single value or array) and defaults for base_lang and target_langs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though context implies it's for auditing rather than fetching single translations.

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