List Article Translations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing a safe, read-only, and repeatable call. The description adds that only metadata is returned (no body), which supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides a direct pointer to an alternative. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and high schema coverage, the description is complete: it specifies what is returned (metadata fields), how to get full content, and where to obtain the required parameter. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes the response shape.

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 already provides a full description for article_id, including how to obtain it (from list_articles or search_articles). This adds context beyond the schema's basic type and constraints, improving usability.

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 it lists available translations for an article, specifies included metadata fields (locale, title, draft, updated_at), and distinguishes itself from get_article for full content. The verb 'list' and resource 'article translations' are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using get_article with locale for full translated content, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative. It effectively tells the agent to use this for metadata-only retrieval.

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