check_missing_languages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'check' operation but does not describe the output format, where TRANSLATION_LANGUAGES is configured, or how missing languages are reported. While the action is clearly non-destructive, significant behavioral details are unaddressed.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what operation is performed and what is compared. It does not explicitly relate to sibling tools, but the simplicity of the operation means the description is largely complete, save for minor details like the source of TRANSLATION_LANGUAGES.

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 already provides a description for the single optional parameter projectRoot, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema sufficiently explains the parameter's meaning.

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's specific function: checking which language directories are missing relative to TRANSLATION_LANGUAGES. The verb 'check' combined with the resource 'missing language directories' and the comparison against a configured list distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on translating or checking changes.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's purpose—it is for identifying missing language directories—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like check_changes or create_and_translate_missing_languages. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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