Renforge Translation Stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Report' weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing states whether it scans files, requires a built project, how expensive it is, or what the counts represent (missing vs total vs untranslated keys).

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler; appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. It is terse to the point of omitting necessary detail, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and undifferentiated siblings, the definition leaves real gaps around parameter meaning and usage context.

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% for both parameters, and the description only obliquely clarifies 'language' via 'for a language'. The required project_path parameter is never explained — is it a directory, a config file, or a project name? The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Report') and resource ('missing dialogue/string translation counts') scoped to a language, so an agent can grasp what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like renforge_estimate_translation or renforge_export_dialogue, leaving potential overlap unclear.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives among the many translation-related siblings (estimate_translation, generate_translations, languages, export_dialogue). The agent must infer the scenario from the name alone.

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