get_missing_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words and is easily scannable.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is minimal. It adequately covers the core purpose but lacks details on return format, defaults, or how it differs from similar tools like coverage_report. For a simple getter with fully documented parameters, it is acceptable but not rich.

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 has 100% coverage, with all four parameters described. The description's mention of 'language and namespace' maps to targetLanguages and namespaces, but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed list of missing keys', with scope 'by language and namespace' and a purpose 'for targeted translation work'. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like coverage_report or list_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 offers only a vague context ('for targeted translation work') and no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, failing to help the agent choose this tool over siblings like sync_missing_keys or coverage_report.

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