check_translation_integrity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Compare' implies a non-mutating read and the return contents are spelled out, but it never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, nor mentions cost/scope limits on scanning all locale files.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus return contents are front-loaded before the optional-scoping note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return data (missing keys, extra keys, empty values per locale). Safety profile and any scoping/perf caveats are the only omissions, which are minor for a comparison check.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself calls namespace 'optional', but the description adds the meaningful default that omitting it checks all configured namespaces. That behavioral default is not derivable from the schema alone, so it adds genuine value over the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: compares locale files against the primary locale and returns a defined diagnostic set (missing/extra/empty values). It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from siblings like check_translation_quality or find_untranslated_values, but it never names an alternative to route against, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only guidance is 'Omit namespace to check all configured namespaces', which is parameter usage rather than when-to-use. There is no explicit statement of when this audit should be chosen over find_untranslated_values or check_translation_quality, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose text.

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