Translate Missing

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the tool may use the host LLM via MCP sampling, returns context for inline translation if unavailable, uses project config, and translates all locales concurrently. This provides useful behavioral context.

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 a short paragraph of four sentences, each providing key information: purpose, fallback, config usage, and concurrency hint. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, one required, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, special behaviors (concurrent translation, conditional LLM use), and config integration. It could be more explicit about the output format, but the mention of 'returns context for the agent' provides some guidance.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the concurrency behavior of 'targetLocales' and the conditional use of LLM, which enhances understanding of parameter effects.

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: 'Find keys missing in target locales and translate them.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'translate_key' and 'get_missing_translations' by combining finding missing keys with translation, and mentions the fallback mechanism (return context for inline translation) and use of project config.

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 states when to use the tool (to translate missing keys) and gives guidance on how to use it, including passing all targetLocales at once for concurrency and noting the fallback if LLM sampling is unavailable. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from alternatives.

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