analyze_lang_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior of detecting missing translations, but it does not clarify whether files are modified, what the report looks like, how malformed .lang files are handled, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 zero waste. It states the resource, the analysis target, and the key detection outcome efficiently.

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 one-parameter analysis tool, the definition is minimally adequate for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about the return format or reporting behavior to fully prepare the agent for what 'analyze' returns.

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%, and the single packPath parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('language files (.lang)') with the added outcome of detecting missing translations across languages. It is clearly distinct from structural or texture validators, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as validate_rp_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 purpose implies when to use it: checking translation completeness in a resource pack. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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