Inspect i18n project

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real workflow context: it must be called once per session before other tools, and it surfaces warnings and resolved config, which are non-obvious behavioral outputs.

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 short clauses with zero filler, and the highest-value instruction (call once per session before other tools) is placed at the end of a tight sentence pair. Every phrase carries information.

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 must convey return content, and it does by enumerating locales, key format, counts, config and warnings. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about how the resolved config/warnings should influence subsequent calls.

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 coverage is 100% and the single workspaceDir parameter is documented there as 'usually omitted'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces — locales, key format, key counts, resolved config, warnings — which makes it distinguishable from the sibling key/translation CRUD tools. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'returns'/'reports'), so it reads as an output list rather than a stated action, keeping it short of a 5.

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 directive 'Call once per session before other tools' gives explicit sequencing guidance that no sibling provides. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or when-not conditions, though the 'once per session' framing implies the info is cached/global.

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