get_namespace_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the result is keys only (no values), sorted, and drawn from the primary locale. Read-only intent is evident from 'Return'. It does not mention pagination or behavior for a missing/empty namespace, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the return contract and followed by the motivating use case. Every clause earns its place 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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (sorted key list, no values) and why. Only minor gaps remain (pagination, empty/missing namespace handling), which are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 single 'namespace' parameter is already documented as coming from .i18n-mcp.json, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the context that keys come from the primary locale, not new meaning about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Return a sorted list of all dot-notation keys in a namespace') plus a key scoping qualifier ('from the primary locale ... without their values'). The 'without their values' phrase implicitly separates it from value-returning siblings like get_translations, so an agent can route correctly 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?

'Use this to plan batch translation work — avoids blowing context with full locale values across many locales' gives a clear use case and the reason to prefer it. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool (e.g., get_translations) for when values are actually needed, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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