Get Strings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, whether results span multiple modules/files, or how pagination behaves. The existence of an output schema covers return shape, but pagination semantics for count/offset remain undisclosed.

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, so it is concise. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency given two entirely undocumented parameters.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a paginated, annotation-less tool with 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the critical paging behavior and usage context entirely unexplained.

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 and does not: 'count' and 'offset' are never explained. An agent cannot tell whether count=0 means 'all strings' or 'none', nor what offset indexes over.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve contents of strings.xml files'), which is clearer than the vague title. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like get_all_resource_file_names and get_resource_file by narrowing to strings.xml, though that distinction is never stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_resource_file or get_all_resource_file_names, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer selection criteria purely from the resource name.

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