translation_coverage

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output (coverage percentage, missing/extra keys) but does not mention whether it modifies files or requires authentication. It appears read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentences: first states action and outcome, second provides purpose. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key details.

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 low complexity (1 boolean param, no output schema), description covers core functionality well. Does not mention if it compares all languages or specific ones, but parameter implies per-language output. Adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Only one parameter (show_missing) with schema description 'Include the list of missing keys for each language. Default: true.' Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3.

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 it compares Lampa language files against English reference, shows coverage percentage, and lists missing/extra keys per language. It also explains the purpose: 'Helps identify untranslated strings before shipping.' This is specific, distinguishes from sibling tools like find_translation_keys.

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 implies use before shipping but does not provide explicit when to use vs alternatives like find_translation_keys. No exclusions or guidance on when not to use this tool.

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