lokalise_get_queued_process

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

No annotations provided; description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool is a read operation returning 'complete process details with logs and status history'. Could be improved by noting no side effects or error scenarios, but adequate.

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 concise sentences front-loading purpose and usage. No wasted words; every sentence 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, the description mentions return content. The tool has only two simple parameters. Provides sufficient context for selection and use, though could briefly note read-only nature.

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% with good descriptions. The description repeats 'Required: projectId, processId' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'gets' and the resource 'specific async process' with examples like upload/download. It implies distinction from listing by using 'specific' and provides a clear 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 explicitly lists use cases: 'check process completion, diagnose failures, or get detailed progress information.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but contextually distinguishes from list siblings.

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