getComponentLanguageProgress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get translation progress' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data, percentages). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex data (translation progress across languages). It doesn't explain the return values, data structure, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete context to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('projectSlug' and 'componentSlug'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'slug' represents or how these parameters relate to the translation progress. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('translation progress for all languages in a component'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getComponentStatistics' or 'getLanguageStatistics', which might also provide related progress metrics, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'getComponentStatistics' or 'getLanguageStatistics', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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