lokalise_get_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It accurately describes that the tool returns full key data including translations, platforms, tags, comments, and history. It implicitly indicates a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only or mention permissions or rate limits.

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?

Very concise: two sentences plus a list of returned fields. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose and scope. Every word adds value.

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 simple parameters, the description covers main functionality, return content, and use cases. However, it lacks mention of error conditions, authentication, or any potential side effects, leaving minor gaps in behavioral context.

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 100%, and the description only repeats that projectId and keyId are required, adding no additional semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no extra value is provided 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 uses specific verbs ('deep-dives', 'investigate', 'debug') and clearly identifies the resource as a single content item. It distinguishes from sibling listing tools like lokalise_list_keys by emphasizing 'single item' and 'complete state'.

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?

Provides clear use cases such as investigating translation status, viewing language versions, and debugging. It states when to use (before targeted updates) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use, though it's implied by the single-item focus.

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