Get Translations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if it requires authentication, or any side effects. For a read tool, it's acceptable but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second offers a key usage hint. No irrelevant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, array inputs), the description is adequate for basic use but lacks full contextual detail for an agent to understand the response.

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%, but the description adds value beyond it: it provides an example for 'keys' and clarifies the '*' wildcard for 'locale'. It also notes the default for 'projectDir'. This enhances understanding.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'translation values', specifying the key inputs (key paths, locale, layer). It distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools like write_translations or search_translations.

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 includes a specific usage tip for reading all locales ('Use "*" as locale'), but does not provide when-not-to-use advice or explicit alternatives. The purpose is clear, but guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools is implicit.

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