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 usefully discloses that it shells out to 'pac copilot extract-translation' and runs under the active pac auth profile (implying auth is required), but says nothing about what it writes, whether existing files are clobbered by default, or that long runs can be backgrounded.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler: the capability and its scope lead, and the implementation/auth detail follows. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

For an 11-parameter CLI wrapper with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials (what is exported, formats, sources, underlying command, auth context). It could have said what the tool returns or where files land, but the schema's outDir/background descriptions partly compensate.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters including formats, sources, profile resolution, and the background/jobId behaviour. The description restates format and source options at a high level without adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (localisable strings of one or all agents) plus the two output formats, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling cs_merge_translations, which is the closest tool an agent could confuse it with, so it falls 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?

"from the environment or from an unpacked solution folder" implies the two source modes (environment vs sourceDir) but never states when to prefer one, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no explicit routing to or away from cs_merge_translations or cs_extract_agent_template, leaving usage to inference.

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