i18n_extract_strings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Extract' suggests a read-only scan, but the description does not disclose whether source files are modified, whether an API key is required for access (despite api_key being a parameter), what output format is returned, or any side effects.

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 no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have used the space to note scope or output without becoming 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin: it omits authentication behavior, supported-language handling, whether extraction is non-mutating, and what the result should look like. The 100% schema coverage covers parameters but not these operational semantics.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that source_code is the input, but adds no new meaning for language or api_key beyond the schema entries.

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 clear verb ('Extract'), a specific resource ('hardcoded user-facing strings'), and a goal ('for internationalization'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like i18n_setup_framework or i18n_generate_translations by its extraction role, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 use case is implied: it is the step for pulling user-facing strings out of source code before localization. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer selection from the name and context.

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