get_i18n_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does surface a genuinely important behavioral trait: the server resolves paths from its own root, not the caller's current directory. Read-only nature is only implied by "Report," and it does not state auth requirements or side-effect guarantees, leaving some gap for an unannotated tool.

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, no waste, with the return contents front-loaded and the worktree/cwd caveat following. The em-dash clause explains the mechanism rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value—and it does so thoroughly (root, origin, config path, absolute path, structure, locales per namespace). Combined with the path-resolution caveat, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 is appropriate. The description correctly implies a parameterless call, and there is no parameter surface for it to elaborate on.

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 gives a specific verb ("Report") and enumerates precisely what it reports: resolved project root, its origin, config file path, and the absolute path/structure/locales of every namespace. The purpose is unmistakable and clearly distinct in nature from the translation CRUD siblings, though no sibling is named to explicitly route the agent elsewhere.

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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition: "Call this before writing if you are working in a git worktree or any checkout other than the directory the MCP client was launched in." That is strong, actionable context, but there is no guidance on when NOT to call it and no alternative tool is named.

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