lokalise_list_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('inspection'), notes return fields (content, status, QA flags), and indicates pagination via cursor/limit. However, it does not disclose rate limits, potential cost, or behavior when filters are omitted.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, parameters, use cases, return info and differentiation. Front-loaded and no filler. Efficient.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, basic param guidance, and use cases. It lacks detail on pagination behavior, explanation of all filters, and a complete description of return format. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds context for 6 of 10 parameters (projectId, limit, cursor, filterLangId, filterIsReviewed, filterQaIssues) and clarifies filterLangId is numeric. It omits filterUnverified, filterUntranslated, filterActiveTaskId, and disableReferences, leaving gaps.

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 'Low-level inspection of actual translated text across languages' with a specific verb (inspection/list) and resource (translations). It also explicitly differentiates from keys: 'Different from keys - this shows actual text.' Use cases like quality audits and checking untranslated content further clarify 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 lists required (projectId) and optional parameters, and gives use cases (quality audits, finding untranslated content, checking language progress). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like lokalise_get_translation for a single translation.

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