Search Translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the matching semantics (simple case-insensitive substring, not fuzzy/regex), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the result format, or mention behavior with large result sets. These gaps reduce transparency.

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 with three short sentences, front-loading the action and then efficiently adding the key limitation and use case. It contains no redundant phrases or buzzwords.

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 is adequate for a search-only tool but leaves some gaps. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns beyond the mention of a 'compact summary' in the outputFile parameter, which is not part of the main description. The behavior for empty results, multiple matches, or very large result sets isn't clarified.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is met. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning key path or value, which is already captured by the query and searchIn parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool searches translation files by key path or value, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly characterizes the match type as simple case-insensitive substring, which distinguishes it from fuzzy or regex-based searches and from sibling tools like get_translations or write_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 says it is 'useful for finding existing translations before adding duplicates,' which gives a clear when-to-use context. It also clarifies the limitation (not fuzzy/regex) but does not recommend an alternative tool for those or other cases, so it stops short of providing explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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