mdn-translation-ja-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it modifies the translation front matter, which is a write operation, and that it fetches a commit from the content repository. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file creation, network requirements) or failure behavior. The core behavior is transparent, but details are sparse.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the context ('content リポジトリで'), and every clause adds meaning. No fluff.

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?

While the description states the main action, it lacks context about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, the absence of return-value information is notable. Given the tool's moderate complexity (read+write) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate 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 only parameter `url` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states. The description's mention of 'corresponding original text' loosely connects to the URL, but this is not explicit parameter-level detail.

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 tool retrieves the latest commit for a source document in the content repository and writes it to the translation file's front matter as l10n.sourceCommit. The verb-resource pairs (get commit, write front matter) are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like mdn_trans_start or mdn_trans_review.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where it should be avoided. The context is implied by the tool name (commit_get), but no direct comparison to siblings is offered.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a replacement action but does not state whether the file is modified in place, how existing second arguments are handled, or what happens if the terminology data lacks the ID. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 focused sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the action and target, with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core transformation but lacks behavioral and usage context. It does not mention return behavior or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 sole parameter jaFile already has a clear schema description (path in translated-content, absolute or relative). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond referring to 'specified file', so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (replace) and resource (glossary macros in a translation file), with a clear transformation pattern from {{glossary("id")}} to {{glossary("id", "表示")}}. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (start, review, commit) which serve different workflow stages.

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 context of use is implied: run on a translation file to complete glossary macro second arguments. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites (e.g., needing terminology data). Sibling tools are not compared.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds explicit behavioral context: the server writes nothing, and the agent must not edit files based on review results unless the user explicitly asks. This is valuable, non-redundant transparency and aligns with annotations.

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 yet complete: it states the purpose, the read-only nature, and the agent's behavioral constraints in a few well-structured sentences. Every sentence adds relevant information with no redundancy.

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, the description explains the tool's function and constraints well. It does not describe the exact structure of the review output, but the listed check categories and clear behavioral rules provide sufficient context for a review tool with good annotations.

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 covers the single parameter jaFile with a clear description and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'translation files,' so baseline 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 tool executes machine checks (notation, style, l10n metadata, glossary macros) on translation files. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like mdn_trans_start or mdn_trans_replace_glossary.

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?

It clearly indicates this is for reviewing translation files and provides explicit guidance on what the agent must not do after receiving results (no editing unless the user explicitly requests it). It does not mention alternative tools, but the unique purpose is clear.

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

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 does so by specifying the exact source and destination paths, the URL-to-filepath transformation (excluding /docs/), and explicitly stating that no translation, redirects, or other file modifications occur. This is strong transparency, though it does not mention conflict handling or return values.

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, dense sentence that communicates purpose, path mapping, and exclusions without redundant filler. Parenthetical clarification and the final exclusion list are information-dense and earn their place. It is front-loaded with the core copy 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?

For a simple copy operation, the description is quite complete: it defines inputs, output location, path transformation, and behavioral boundaries. Minor gaps include the absence of return value description (no output schema exists) and failure conditions when the target file already exists (especially since overwrite is a parameter). Still, the essential context is well covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters (url format and overwrite behavior). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the URL-to-path mapping context, which is already implied by the purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool copies a Markdown file from the en-US content hierarchy to the corresponding ja translated-content path ('コピーするのみ'). It also clearly delimits scope by listing what it does NOT do (translation, _redirects, other file edits), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mdn_trans_review or mdn_trans_replace_glossary.

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 implies usage as the initial step in a translation workflow by stating it only performs the copy and does not handle translation or other edits. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when starting a new translation' or directly reference alternative tools for later stages. Context is clear but exclusions are implicit rather than prescriptive.

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