godot_get_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add the file types (.translation / .csv) as relevant context, but it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as whether the result is a list, whether it reflects only currently loaded files, or any side effects. With the safety profile covered by annotations, 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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema that covers return structure, and it is a simple read-only query with one optional parameter that is described in the schema. The description is sufficient for a competent agent to understand the basic purpose, though it could mention the filtering capability explicitly. Overall, it is complete enough for the complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the tool description does not mention the locale_filter parameter at all. It only describes the overall query, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's own description (which does exist but is not credited given the coverage signal). The description adds no value in explaining parameter semantics.

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 action (query) and the resource (registered localization files), and specifies the file types (.translation / .csv). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_add_translation, which handles addition. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is read-only or contrast with add_translation or other localization tools. The context of when to query vs. add is left to inference, providing no explicit usage criteria.

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