get_pending_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact result shape, the doNotTranslate exclusion rule, and the size cap with an explicit continuation pattern. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or confirm the read-only nature outright, so it falls just short of fully rich disclosure.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler: purpose and return shape first, then exclusion rule, then the routing guidance, then the pagination/continuation behavior. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does ({ key: primaryValue }), plus the exclusion and size-cap behavior. It is nearly complete; only edge cases such as a locale with no pending work or invalid namespace are unaddressed.

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% and both required params (locale, namespace) are documented in the schema with examples. The description only restates that the call is scoped to a single locale, adding no format, default, or constraint information beyond the schema; 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 ('Get the complete translation work list for a single locale') and defines the exact selection criteria: missing, empty, or still identical to the primary locale. The returned shape { key: primaryValue } and the phrase 'one call returns exactly what needs translating, nothing else' implicitly distinguish it from broader siblings like get_translations.

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?

Explicitly names the intended caller ('the preferred way for a per-locale translation agent to fetch its own work') and describes the follow-up workflow with a named sibling: after writing a slice with add_multiple_translations, call again. It also states the doNotTranslate exclusion condition, so the agent knows when keys will not appear.

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