find_empty_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is local-file-only and does not hit translation APIs, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or whether results are paginated, leaving behavioral traits partly unspecified.

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 tight sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope constraint second. Every clause 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly enough, but with no output schema the description never hints at the return shape (e.g., file paths plus keys or values), leaving a small but real gap.

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 a single well-documented 'files' parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of JSON/YAML locale files echoes the schema rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 ('find') and resource ('empty/null/whitespace-only translation values in locale files'), which is more precise than the name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_keys or compare_locales, so it stops 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 'Local locale JSON/YAML files only — does not call translation APIs' clause draws a useful scope boundary, effectively a when-not condition. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to pick this over list_keys or compare_locales, so usage remains implied rather than directed.

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