get_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' clearly signals a non-destructive read operation, and the added detail about returning the file each value lives in provides useful output behavior context. However, it does not mention error handling or sorting, but these are not critical for such a simple tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and output detail without any redundant words. It earns its place entirely.

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 simple tool complexity, a 2-parameter schema with full coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool returns (values and the file), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps like missing-key behavior are acceptable at this simplicity level.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for 'key' (dot-separated key path, e.g. 'roles_scope.super_admin') and 'locales' (default: all locales). The description's phrase 'across locales' aligns with the 'locales' parameter but adds no new semantic detail 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 'Get a key's values across locales, with the file each lives in' clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('a key's values'), scope ('across locales'), and an additional detail ('with the file each lives in'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'keys' (listing all keys) and 'search' (fuzzy lookup).

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve a specific key's translations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'search' or 'missing'. The context is clear enough for a simple read operation, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use directions.

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