List Namespaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('hierarchical view... counts per namespace node'), which is useful, and 'List'/'explore' imply read-only behavior. However, it doesn't state side-effect safety explicitly, performance implications for large trees, or error conditions.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: the action, the output shape, and the usage context. Front-loaded with the verb+resource, no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a read-style exploration tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and usage context adequately. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by describing the hierarchical view with counts. A brief explicit read-only/safety note would make it fully complete given zero annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already documents defaults, examples, and meanings for layer, locale, and projectDir. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general 'namespace prefix' context, so it neither elevates nor degrades the baseline.

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+resource ('List the translation key tree grouped by namespace prefix') and clarifies the output shape ('hierarchical view of all keys with counts per namespace node'). It's clearly distinct from siblings like search_translations or get_translations by its grouping/exploration framing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

'Use this to explore available keys without guessing path prefixes' provides an explicit use case, but there are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives among the 16 sibling tools. The guidance is present but implied rather than comparative.

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