Check QML Ternary Translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the narrow detection rule being enforced but says nothing about output shape (errors vs. list of findings), exit behavior, or whether a path defaults; with annotations present, this lands at the baseline.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the detection target stated immediately and no filler. It is tight, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, no documentation of the only parameter, and no statement of what a run produces or requires. For a checker whose results an agent must interpret, the definition leaves too much unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the lone 'path' parameter at all — whether it is a file, directory, or project root, or what the default is when omitted. Since the schema carries no semantic detail, the description had to compensate and does not.

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 ('Flag') and a precise resource ('QML ternary qsTrId expressions that need branch-local comments'), so the agent knows exactly what lint class this covers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling sailfish_qml_find_translations, so differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no indication of when to reach for this checker versus sailfish_qml_find_translations, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid QML project root), and no scope/exclusion guidance. Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose.

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