Extract translation files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs a pac command with the active auth profile and writes files, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies any source data or what side effects writing files might have (beyond the overwrite parameter). It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, both front-loaded with the core purpose and the underlying command. No fluff, every word earns its place. The structure makes the key intent immediately clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs (sources, bot scope, formats) and mentions the inherited pac auth behavior. It does not describe return values or job behavior, but the schema already covers parameters like background and outDir, so the description is mostly complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the relationship between 'environment' and 'sourceDir' ('from the environment or from an unpacked solution folder') and the scope of 'bot' ('one or all agents'). This goes slightly beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a clear resource (localisable strings of agents), output formats (.resx or .json), and the two possible sources (environment or unpacked solution folder). It is distinct from siblings like cs_merge_translations by naming the exact function, even without an explicit comparison.

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 clear context: it is for exporting translations for one or all agents, from either an environment or an unpacked solution folder. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly among the large sibling set, especially alongside cs_merge_translations.

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