kaeris_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that JSON is checked fully offline while other formats hit the /api/parse endpoint, that there is no translation or cost, and details the exact outputs: missing keys, extra/stale keys, placeholder mismatches, and missing files. This provides a complete behavioral profile.

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 long but densely packed with valuable information, structured logically from summary to format handling to usage guidance to args to return value. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the lead sentence immediately clarifies the tool's role. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: supported formats, offline vs. backend behavior, parameter defaults, expected file layout, and a detailed return object. An agent could confidently select and invoke this tool without ambiguity.

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%, but the description compensates richly. It defines source with concrete examples, explains langs as target codes with fallback to kaeris.json or auto-discovery, and details the out directory with default behavior and expected file naming. This adds far more meaning than the sparse schema.

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 a specific verb (completeness/health check) and resource (every target locale against a source file). It explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'i18n firewall' and contrasts with sibling tools like kaeris_list_missing_keys and kaeris_add_language, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find out what's broken before deciding whether to call kaeris_list_missing_keys... or kaeris_add_language.' It also explains fallback behavior for langs and format coverage, giving clear context and alternative tools.

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