mediawiki_check_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that results are missing translations grouped by language, but it does not discuss live-wiki behavior, idempotency in practice, or rate/performance characteristics beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, and RETURNS sections. It is easy to scan, though the parameter list is somewhat redundant given the 100%-covered input schema and the RETURNS note overlaps with the available output schema.

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 moderate complexity, rich input schema, and available output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: what the tool does, when to use it, key inputs, and the shape of results. The limit default inconsistency is a small completeness gap, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 the parameters in detail. The description's parameter list largely repeats that schema, but it states a default of 50 for limit while the schema says default 20, and it pluralizes pattern values ('subpages', 'suffixes', 'prefixes') differently from the schema ('subpage', 'suffix', 'prefix'). Those inconsistencies reduce rather than add value.

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 and resource: find pages missing translations in specified languages. This is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like mediawiki_check_links or mediawiki_check_terminology, which check different properties. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 USE WHEN section gives clear example prompts, such as asking which pages need German translation or checking language coverage. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives standard.

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