Check Localization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only guarantee, no statement of what is inspected (UI strings? glossary terms? scene text?), no indication of whether it mutates state, and no hint at the result shape. 'text overflow' is the only behavioral clue.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and an unclear scope of what 'localization issues' covers, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently. It falls short of what a one-parameter validation tool needs.

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?

There is one parameter (project_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it, so the agent cannot tell whether it is required, optional, or defaults to the active project. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource (check / localization) and gives a concrete example of the class of problem ('text overflow'), which is more informative than a bare restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby validation siblings such as validate_project or check_scene_against_rules.

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 gives no indication of when this check should be run, whether it requires an initialized project, or how it relates to register_localization_rule. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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