get_all_translation_keys_v2

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavior: it returns all keys at once without pagination and specifies the exact fields included (id, key, namespace only, no metadata). This goes beyond what annotations state and helps the agent understand the response shape and scope.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, then lists key properties (no pagination, optional filter, use case) in a bulleted format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it names the exact return fields, notes that all keys are returned, and suggests a specific use case. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only list tool and are partly implied by the annotations.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Filter by translation key ID (optional).' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond repeating that the filter is optional. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and there is no additional enrichment.

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 clearly states the tool returns all translation keys with a specific set of fields (id, key, namespace) and explicitly excludes metadata. It uses a clear verb and resource, and the optional filter is mentioned. This distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list, such as get_translation_key_details which likely returns more detail.

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 gives a specific use case: 'Use this when you need translation key IDs (e.g., to use with update_translation_key_by_id).' It also notes that no pagination is needed and that filtering by id is optional. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions to avoid using this tool, so it is not quite a 5.

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