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 of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Report', which suggests a read-only action, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention permissions, or clarify what happens with the provided parameters. There is no context on return format or potential costs, making this a significant gap for a tool that likely accesses project files.

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, focused sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately conveys the core function, exemplifying conciseness.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps: it does not explain the project_path parameter, lacks usage guidance, and provides no behavioral context beyond 'Report'. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description still feels incomplete for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a language' which hints at the 'language' parameter, but it does not name or explain the 'project_path' parameter at all. There is no guidance on expected formats, required values, or how the two parameters relate, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 verb 'Report' and the specific resource 'missing dialogue/string translation counts' for a language. It distinguishes itself from siblings like renforge_generate_translations or renforge_estimate_translation by focusing on missing counts, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for checking translation coverage but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of alternatives. It does not compare with sibling tools like renforge_estimate_translation or renforge_generate_translations, leaving the 'when to use' guidance implicit.

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