check_lang_consistency

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose 'Read-only,' which is the single most important safety fact for an agent. It says nothing else behavioral — no cost, no failure modes, no indication of whether a comparison over many locales is expensive or whether it mutates anything indirectly.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its checks, closing with the read-only caveat. Nothing is wasted or restated from the name.

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?

The enumeration of checks (missing/extra keys, placeholder and format-code mismatches, untranslated leftovers) effectively describes what the result will report even without an output schema. What is missing is parameter guidance — especially which locale is the reference and whether the locale params are optional — for a tool where two of three params are undocumented.

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 0% and the description never mentions slug, sourceLocale, or targetLocale, nor their defaults or valid formats. At best 'extracted source' and 'translated lang files' loosely gesture at the two locale parameters, leaving the required slug completely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb ('Compare') plus a clear resource ('translated lang files against the extracted source') and an enumeration of exactly what mismatches it detects. It implicitly separates itself from extract_lang (extraction) and build_lang_pack (packaging), but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'against the extracted source' implies this runs after extract_lang and before build_lang_pack, but no when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite statement is given. An agent must infer its place in the workflow from tool names alone.

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