WPML String-Übersetzungen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states a read operation ('Ruft ab') without detailing what data is returned, whether results are paginated, if authentication or specific capabilities are needed, or any other operational nuances. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise sentence with no superfluous words, but it lacks substance. It is minimally sized yet does not pack enough context to be highly useful; it is neither overly verbose nor richly informative, so a middle score is warranted.

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 output schema and only a short generic purpose statement, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'registered string translations' means in the WPML context, how the optional parameters affect results, or what the agent should expect from the response. This creates ambiguity for correct 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 100%, with both parameters (domain and language) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Ruft registrierte String-Übersetzungen ab' clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and the resource (registered string translations), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wpml_get_post_translations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other WPML tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual scenarios. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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