detect_missing_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not specify which file is the reference (base vs target), whether the comparison is recursive, or the format of the report. The description is too minimal to convey behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence of only 6 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; no excess.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 string parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and clear input schema, the description is largely adequate. Minor missing details like recursion or file format expectations, but overall complete enough for a straightforward comparison utility.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('Compare two locale files') and outcome ('report missing keys'). It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'translate_missing_keys' which performs a different action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'translate_missing_keys'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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