sqo_i18n_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose useful behavior: the audited file types, the two defect classes it detects, and a cost profile ("<200 tokens, -97% vs reading raw locale files") that tells the agent this returns a summary rather than raw bundle contents. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only or what the result looks like, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with the scope and defect types first and the cost claim second; nothing is redundant. The "Universal" label and the "-97%" figure are slightly promotional, though the efficiency number is genuinely decision-relevant.

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?

For a one-parameter diagnostic with no annotations and no output schema, the agent knows what files are scanned, what counts as a finding, and roughly how much output to expect. The return shape (counts vs. a per-key list, and whether fixes are suggested) remains unstated and would have to be discovered.

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?

One parameter (`workspace`) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it as the workspace root. The description adds no path-resolution or multi-root nuance beyond what is already structured, so 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 a specific verb-resource pair: it "checks" Flutter `.arb` and `locales/*.json` bundles, and names exactly what it looks for — missing translation keys and `{var}` placeholder mismatches. No sibling in the catalog covers i18n, so the domain label alone separates it from the cache/perf/security audit family.

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 domain signature (Flutter .arb, locales/*.json) implicitly scopes when the tool applies, but there is no explicit "use when" trigger, no prerequisite, and no statement about when another tool is the better choice — notably sqo_drift_guard, whose "drift" wording overlaps with "i18n Drift Auditor."

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