Check locale files

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

The description enumerates the checks performed (missing/orphaned keys, dropped/invented placeholders, collapsed plurals, empty values, untranslated copy) and states determinism, but does not specify the output format, return codes, or behavior on success/failure. Users know what it does but not exactly what they will receive.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the validation checks in a clear sequence. It is concise without unnecessary detail, providing essential information in a compact form.

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 description gives sufficient context about the tool's function within the set of sibling tools (e.g., validation vs. diffing or reviewing), but it omits an output schema and details about error handling or return structure. Without these, users may need additional information to fully integrate the tool.

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?

All four parameters are described clearly in the schema: path indicates the locale tree/directory/file, source specifies the language code, ignoreKeys explains the glob pattern for silencing, and glossaryPath points to a JSON glossary. The descriptions fully cover the parameters with no ambiguity.

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 purpose: validating translated locale files against a source language, listing specific validation checks (missing keys, placeholders, plurals, empty values, untranslated copy). It also notes that the tool is deterministic and requires no API key or model call, reinforcing its intended use.

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 implies usage by listing what it validates and noting it requires no API key or model call, which suggests it can be run offline. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like diff_locales or review_locales, or what conditions trigger its use.

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