Scaffold Locale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains core behavior and format support, but omits details like overwriting behavior, error handling (e.g., if default locale missing), or permission requirements.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, method, and caveat. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a good high-level understanding. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting), error states, and confirmation prompts. Still sufficient for an agent to decide usage.

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% with clear descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining that the key structure is copied from the default locale, which is not in the schema. It also provides context like 'call discover to discover layers' and auto-detection for locales.

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 ('Create'), the resource ('locale files for new languages'), and the specific method (copies key structure with empty strings). It also distinguishes from siblings like get_translations or write_translations by focusing on scaffolding empty files.

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 says when to use (for new languages) and gives a crucial precondition: the locale must be added to config first. However, it does not compare with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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