Find new/changed translation keys in the current project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses default diff behavior, support for untracked files, deduplication, framework configurability, and a notable limitation (no module slug resolution). It doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or return structure, but the scan nature implies safety.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mode details, and exclusions/alternatives. Front-loaded with the main action and highly scannable, with no fluff or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides reasonable return info (deduped with prefix) but lacks a precise return shape. It thoroughly covers inputs, modes, framework, and relationships to sibling tools, making it adequately complete for an agent to decide and invoke it.

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 both parameters have detailed descriptions (diffBase explains git ref and default; framework explains override). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default mode and framework list, but largely mirrors the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool scans for added/changed translation keys and returns them deduped with a source-derived prefix. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it does NOT resolve the Blocks module slug (list_modules) and is a standalone block (prepare_sync composes it).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: default mode reads working-tree + staged diff plus untracked files, with an alternative diffBase mode. It also names alternatives—list_modules for slug resolution and prepare_sync for full sync—making the tool's role in the workflow crystal clear.

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