get_translations_for_resource

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it merely restates the tool name and adds no information about return format, locale handling, pagination, or any side effects. The agent gains no insight beyond the tool's literal name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it largely echoes the tool name, limiting its added value. Nevertheless, it is efficient and not overly verbose.

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 get-by-ID tool, the description is minimal but lacks essential context. It does not mention what the returned translations comprise, whether locale information is included, or how to map this to related tools. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides full coverage of the single resourceId parameter, including an example format. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters; it adds no additional meaning but the schema already communicates the necessary semantics.

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 action (Get) and the resource (translations) with a specific scope ('for a specific resource'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_translations or get_translatable_resources. The phrasing directly maps to the required resourceId parameter.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools such as get_translatable_resources for listing resources or get_translations for broader retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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