list_local_locales

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'scan' and 'return', but does not explicitly confirm it makes no modifications or describe potential edge cases (e.g., empty projects, unsupported frameworks). The listed frameworks and file types add context, but behavior like recursion or detection heuristics is not disclosed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Scan project') and then packs valuable details (file types, frameworks) without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, making it concise yet informative.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should more thoroughly describe the return contract. It says 'return structured information' but does not specify what fields or structure to expect, nor does it mention default behavior for project_path or handling of mixed frameworks. This is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent might need to discover at runtime.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (project_path and include_key_count), so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying how include_key_count affects output or project_path defaults. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 action ('Scan project for locale files'), lists concrete file types and frameworks, and indicates the output (structured information). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_translation_status and sync_translations, which focus on status and synchronization rather than discovery.

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 for discovering available locales and detecting the i18n framework, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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