Get Missing Translations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), performance implications, or output structure beyond a vague 'compact summary' only mentioned in a parameter description. The description itself does not tell the agent if this is a safe operation or if it might produce large responses.

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 two tight sentences, each carrying meaningful information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the layer-scanning nuance without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format (compact vs. full output), how layer scanning interacts with the output, or the relationship between referenceLocale and targetLocales. The presence of siblings with nuanced differences makes the description incomplete for safe invocation without further inference.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter value: it mentions 'reference locale' and 'other locales' conceptually, which aligns with referenceLocale and targetLocales, but does not provide extra semantic depth beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema fully documents all parameters, the description does not need to compensate heavily.

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's function: 'Find translation keys that exist in the reference locale but are missing in other locales.' It also adds the layer-scoping detail ('Scans a specific layer or all layers'), which distinguishes it from related tools like find_orphan_keys (different basis) and find_empty_translations (different condition). This specificity makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not when it should be preferred over sibling tools like find_orphan_keys or get_translation_status, nor any prerequisites such as requiring a valid reference locale. The parameter descriptions hint at defaults but do not provide contextual use cases or exclusions.

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