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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It accurately states that the tool returns translations in all project languages or the specified subset, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention behavior related to branch/namespace filtering, error handling, or authentication differences (PAT vs PAK), leaving gaps.

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 verb and resource. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the basics of language filtering. It omits important context such as the roles of branch and namespace, the projectId requirement difference for PAT vs PAK, and any details about the return structure. The tool is not fully specified for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 this dimension receives the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the languages parameter's 'all or specified' behavior already documented in the schema. No extra context is provided for other parameters like branch or projectId.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'translations for a specific key in a Tolgee project,' making it distinct from sibling tools like get_key (which presumably returns key metadata) and search_keys. It also explicitly describes the return scope (all languages or specified), giving a specific, actionable purpose.

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 a usage condition: use the 'languages' parameter to limit results to specified languages; otherwise it returns all languages. However, it does not provide any guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like get_key or search_keys, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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