Get Translation Status

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

The description explains key behaviors: handling of empty strings, exclusion of protected locales, and that it returns only a summary. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if writing to outputFile is a side effect, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise, using three sentences that each add essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 provides sufficient context for a user to understand what the tool does, its output, and special conditions. It explains the summary return and the handling of protected locales and empty strings, making it complete for a read-only reporting tool.

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?

All four parameters are thoroughly described in the JSON schema, covering layer, outputFile, projectDir, and referenceLocale. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for parameter clarity.

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 purpose: computing translation coverage statistics with per-locale and per-layer counts, plus an overall percentage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_missing_translations by offering a consolidated view.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool instead of calling get_missing_translations per layer, and explains edge cases (empty strings count as untranslated, protected locales excluded from overall). This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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