get_translatable_resources

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, filtering semantics, or the meaning of 'translatable resources.' The parameter schema fills some gaps, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a basic verb.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list-fetch operation, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use it. It only states 'Fetch translatable resources from the store,' omitting the response shape, default first value, pagination behavior, and relationships to sibling translation tools. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for after, first, and resourceType, including an enum for resourceType. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the general concept of fetching translatable resources, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('translatable resources') and source ('from the store'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_translations_for_resource and get_translations, which deal with translation content itself, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_translations, get_translations_for_resource, or register_translation. The only implied usage is that it fetches resources, but there is no context for how this fits into translation workflows or what scenarios call for it.

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