check_translations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects, performance implications). The tool's name and description suggest a check operation, but no confirmation of safety or mutability is given.

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, which is concise but overly brief. It lacks structured information that could be front-loaded, such as return type or critical constraints. It is short but not optimally informative.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation beyond name, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior. It omits output format, error cases, and usage context, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema. Only 33% of parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the description does not compensate for the remaining parameters. It fails to explain how parameters like 'site' or 'strings' interact or their domain significance.

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 checks string translations for a given text domain, and the name 'check_translations' aligns with that. It distinguishes from sibling 'check_plural_translations', implying singular focus. However, it lacks specificity on what 'verifica' entails (e.g., existence, correctness).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_plural_translations' or other tools. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for invocation, leaving the agent without decision support.

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