List strings to translate

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description still adds real behavioral context: stale means translations whose id no longer exists, and strings already translated by the game or other modules (matching id and text) are silently skipped. That skip rule is essential to interpreting results and is not in the annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, then the filtering/skip semantics and the next-step handoff. The inline {id, text[, tr]} notation is compact and earns its space, though it reads slightly telegraphically.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the JSON-lines record shape and skip behavior. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and readOnly annotations, an agent has nearly everything needed; only pagination behavior (limit/offset) is left to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it defines the default filter (untranslated) and clarifies the non-obvious 'stale' enum value as translations with vanished ids. This enriches the most ambiguous parameter rather than restating it.

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 (Lists) and resource (a module's strings for one language) and pins down the exact output shape as JSON lines of {id, text[, tr]}. It also names the counterpart tool (l10n_set) that consumes the results, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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 explains the filter modes (untranslated default, translated, all, stale) and gives a clear workflow: list, translate, send to l10n_set. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over l10n_scan, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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