Get 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 behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, response format, pagination, or other operational traits. The wildcard note about reading all locales is the only behavioral detail beyond the obvious, which is thin given zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second adds the single most useful operational tip. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 schema is rich (100% parameter coverage) and this is a straightforward getter, so the minimal description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could clarify the response shape or explicitly confirm there are no side effects. It's functional but doesn't compensate for what structured fields don't cover.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's wildcard note ('Use "*" as locale to read from all locales') is already captured in the schema's locale parameter description, so the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') with a specific resource ('translation values for given key paths from a specific locale and layer'). It clearly communicates this is a read operation for specific keys, which distinguishes it from sibling write tools like write_translations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closest siblings like get_missing_translations or search_translations, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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 implies usage context: 'for given key paths' suggests this is the right tool when you have specific keys in mind rather than broad searches. The explicit tip about using '*' as locale provides practical operational guidance but relates to parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance versus alternatives.

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