Scan localizable strings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description corroborates by disclosing that the fix flags rewrite the module's XML with fresh unique ids — concrete detail beyond the annotation about what is mutated. It stops short of stating reversibility or whether a scan alone (no fix flags) is purely read-only.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the scan scope before the reporting categories and the mutation behavior. The second sentence is a dense list but every item earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the report contents (missing/empty/reused/colliding ids plus per-language coverage) and the mutation side effects, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Permission or rate-limit prerequisites are absent but are marginal here.

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%, so the structured fields already document all five parameters; the description still adds value by tying code_dir to the Source/ fallback and by characterizing the fix flags as XML rewrites with fresh unique ids rather than just boolean toggles.

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 and resource (scans a module's XML, GUI prefabs and C# code for {=id}Text strings) and enumerates exactly what problems it reports, so an agent knows the scope well. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby l10n_status / l10n_set siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 closing sentence explains what fix_missing_ids / fix_conflicts do, implying when those flags apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to l10n_status / l10n_set, so the agent must infer the routing.

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