translation_get

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

With no annotations, the description adequately details the read-only behavior, including batch processing, optional filtering, and return format variations. It lacks explicit mention of side effects or authentication needs, but for a read tool this is sufficient.

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 moderately long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though slightly more brevity could improve conciseness.

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, the description thoroughly covers input variations, batch behavior, and return formats (single vs array). It accounts for complexity and is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 fully explains each parameter: record_id and field_name accept single values or arrays, langs is optional, model is required. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

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 it reads all language translations for a translatable field on a record. It specifies the action (read), resource (translations), and scope (for a translatable field), distinguishing it from sibling tools like translation_update and translation_audit.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (to read translations), mentions batch reading and optional language filtering. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the usage context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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