Diff locales against the source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses the output type (missing and obsolete keys per language) and notes that no API key is required, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies anything, or how errors are handled. This is partial transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the key question ('what needs translating?') and then specifies the two output categories, followed by a short authentication note. Every sentence adds value with no redundant fluff.

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 simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the output conceptually (per-language missing and obsolete keys) and mentions authentication. It does not specify the return format or edge cases, but for a diff tool this is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. 'path' and 'source' are well-defined, but 'lang' is vague ('Limit to one language') – it does not specify if this is a target language code, a filter, or its relationship to 'source'. Overall, the descriptions add meaning beyond parameter names, but the ambiguity of 'lang' prevents a top score.

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: to answer 'what needs translating?' by listing missing keys and obsolete keys per language. This is specific and distinguishes it from general locale tools, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings. The core function is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_locales or review_locales. The description implies use for identifying translation gaps, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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