Discover i18n Setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it delivers by specifying the contents of the return value (config, directory listings, active mode) and the exact semantics of the 'provider'/'agent' mode condition. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or side-effect absence, but for a discovery tool this is a minor omission given the thorough output specification.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then expands into precise details about return values and layerGraph. Each sentence adds unique information with no redundancy or filler, making it highly navigable for an agent.

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 description is complete for a zero-required-param discovery tool: it explains what is returned, the formatting of active mode, the meaning of layerGraph, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the text fully compensates by describing all key return categories.

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 only parameter, projectDir, has 100% schema description coverage including its default behavior. The tool description does not add anything beyond this, but the schema already fully explains the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('i18n setup'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: project config, per-layer directory listings, and active translation mode. It clearly differentiates this from siblings by positioning it as the initial project-holding tool rather than one of the specific translation operations.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first to understand the project before reading or writing translations.' It also explains when layerGraph is relevant (for deciding where a new key belongs), providing clear context without explicitly listing negative cases or alternative tools.

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