lokalise_list_keys

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

The description claims 'cursor pagination' but the input schema uses a 'page' parameter (offset pagination), creating a contradiction. It also omits the 'filterFilenames' parameter. No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits, but it fails here.

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 reasonably concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, the error about pagination and missing parameter detract from clarity and structure.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic usage and return type but is incomplete due to the pagination contradiction and omitted parameter. It provides adequate but not comprehensive 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description incorrectly mentions 'cursor' instead of 'page' and misses 'filterFilenames'. This adds confusion rather than clarity, reducing the value 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 clearly states the tool lists translation keys and explores content structure. It provides use cases like browsing, finding keys, or auditing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lokalise_list_translations, though the purpose is distinct.

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 advises 'Start here to understand project content,' implying it is the first step. It lists required and optional parameters but does not specify when not to use or alternatives, leaving usage mostly implicit.

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