check_i18n_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as scanning and checking, implying a read-only analysis. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (likely none), performance impact for large codebases, or error behavior. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence listing the main actions, which is concise. It front-loades the purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating the checks, but it's efficient.

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?

Given the parameter count (8) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, how results are structured, or how to interpret failures. For a complex analysis tool, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description should compensate but does not. It mentions the three check types (missing keys, unused keys, hardcoded text), which map to three boolean parameters, but provides no details on rootDir, localeDir, defaultLocale, include, or exclude. The baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 tool scans locale and source files for three specific issues: missing keys, unused keys, and hardcoded text. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_api_types and get_project_structure.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage from the parameter names alone.

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