get_translation_key_details

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

Annotations already disclose that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the returned metadata fields but does not describe deeper behavior such as error cases, authorization needs, or response shape. It is consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by two short bullets covering parameters and return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant filler.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the required key, optional namespace, and the metadata fields returned. Since there is no output schema, listing example return fields helps the agent, though it could also note missing-key behavior.

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%, so the schema already explains 'key' and 'namespace'. The description only restates which parameter is required and which is optional, adding no deeper meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'return details for a specific translation key.' It clearly distinguishes this singular detail-lookup tool from plural listing siblings like get_translation_keys and get_all_translation_keys.

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 clearly signals when to use it: when you need details for a specific translation key, with 'key' required and 'namespace' optional. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the singular-specific framing provides clear usage context.

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