Get translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: 'null marks a missing translation' explains the return semantics for absent values, and the trailing-dot namespace rule describes an expansion behavior not evident from the name alone.

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?

Three compact clauses with zero filler; the core scope ('values of specific keys in every locale') is front-loaded, followed by the two highest-value edge-case behaviors. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so partially by defining null as a missing translation. It does not clarify the overall response shape (per-key vs per-locale grouping) or how limit/maxValueChars shape the result, leaving a small gap for a six-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all six parameters. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a '.'-suffixed key returns the whole namespace and that null signals a missing translation, which clarifies the effect of the keys and includeValues parameters at runtime.

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 (get values of specific keys across locales) and clarifies scope with '(or selected) locale'. It distinguishes exact-key lookup from the broader sibling tools like i18n_search_keys implicitly, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides one conditional usage hint ('Use includeValues:false for presence only') which implies when the tool is useful for existence checks. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over i18n_search_keys or i18n_file_keys, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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