lookup_localisation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool resolves to text, file and line, indicating a read-only lookup. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing keys, return format details, or any potential side effects. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds value. This is exemplary 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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema exists, and the description names the three return fields (text, file, line). It is complete for its core purpose. It doesn't mention edge cases or alternatives, but given the simplicity and existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The term 'localisation key' adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'key' parameter, indicating the expected input format and domain. However, it doesn't elaborate on formatting, case sensitivity, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('localisation key') and specifies the output ('text, file and line'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_script (which likely resolves script references) and search_definitions, making the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.

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 implies usage: when you have a localisation key and want its text and location. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like lookup_script or search_definitions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is straightforward but the guidance is not explicit.

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