get_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational behavior beyond annotations: it lists filtering dimensions, pagination, sorting, and the text search minimum length, all consistent with a read-only listing operation.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a scannable bullet list for capabilities. Every sentence adds functional information; there is no filler or repetition. A minor gap is the vague 'and more' in the filter list, but overall it is well structured.

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?

The description covers the main operational facets: listing, filtering, pagination, sorting, and the text search constraint. However, there is no output schema and the description does not disclose what the response contains or its structure, which matters for a tool with 12 optional parameters. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 documents every parameter. The description summarizes filter categories and the text minimum length, but does not add substantive meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('translations in your SimpleLocalize project'), and the bullet list clarifies what the tool does. However, it does not name or differentiate explicitly from sibling tools like get_translation_keys or get_all_translation_keys, so the distinction is left to inference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related note, the minimum character length for 'text', applies to a parameter rather than tool selection. There are no exclusion criteria or explicit comparisons to sibling tools.

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