Keys used by a file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully sketches the result shape (keys plus locales missing each), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about performance on large workspaces or handling of files with no keys.

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 zero filler; the result semantics come first and the workflow trigger follows. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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 read-only query tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns and when to run it, which is enough for correct invocation. The missing piece is disambiguation from i18n_key_references and the other i18n inspection siblings.

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 all three parameters (filePath, workspaceDir, includeComplete) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: translation keys referenced in one source file, plus which locales lack them. The scope (one file) is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling i18n_key_references, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

"Run after editing a component to verify its copy is complete" gives a concrete trigger condition. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. i18n_key_references, i18n_audit, i18n_search_keys) or when-not-to-use conditions, so routing among siblings still requires inference.

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