find_untranslated_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers real behavioral context: it discloses the doNotTranslate exclusion rule and the exact return shape, which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of stating read-only/side-effect-free status or permission requirements, so it isn't fully complete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, then the exclusion rule, then the return format. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the detection logic, the exclusion, and the return structure. It lacks only explicit read-only/permission framing and any note on scale or performance.

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%, with both parameters (locale, namespace) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. locale default semantics or namespace resolution) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise verb+resource and defines the exact detection heuristic: keys whose translated value equals the primary locale value (placeholder translations). This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like get_pending_translations or check_translation_quality without opening schemas.

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 when the tool is useful (locating stale placeholder translations), but never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it, even though siblings like get_pending_translations and check_translation_integrity overlap conceptually. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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