翻訳のガイドライン機械レビュー（読み取りのみ）

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.