lokalise_get_language

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

No annotations exist, and the description relies on the verb 'Examines' to imply read-only behavior. It does not explicitly disclose its non-destructive nature, auth requirements, or other behavioral traits. The implication is sufficient but not fully transparent.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, required params, use cases, and return details. It is front-loaded and lacks unnecessary fluff.

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 adequately explains the return value by listing ISO codes, plural forms, and writing direction. It covers required params and use cases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling), but the tool is simple.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new information beyond restating the required parameters. Therefore, it meets the baseline without adding extra 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?

The description clearly states 'Examines detailed settings for a specific project language,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this read-only tool from siblings like 'lokalise_list_project_languages' and 'lokalise_update_language' by emphasizing detailed examination of a single language.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use to verify plural rules, check RTL configuration, or understand custom settings.' It also highlights relevance for complex languages. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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