Translation coverage

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant rather than additive. The description does earn some credit by defining the domain terms it reports on — 'drafts' as machine translations awaiting review and 'outdated' as written for an older source text — but says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the read hits disk or a remote service.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, enumerates what it reports, and ends with the read-only qualifier. Dense with no filler, though the parenthetical definitions make it slightly list-heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is covered by the schema. What's missing is routing guidance relative to the many sibling coverage tools, which is the main residual gap for an otherwise simple read-only status tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'root' parameter is fully documented there, including its default to the server working directory. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States precisely what the tool reports — message totals, translated counts per locale, drafts awaiting review, and outdated translations — which is specific enough to separate it from verbaly_drafts or verbaly_missing. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the enumerated output set does the differentiating work.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' clause and no exclusion against verbaly_drafts or verbaly_missing, which overlap with the drafts and missing counts. Usage is only implied by the 'coverage' framing as a high-level overview and by the 'Read-only' note.

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