tool_check_language_picker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it enumerates the failure modes detected and lists the return keys (ok, source_language, available_languages, buttons, issues). It does not explicitly state that the check is non-mutating or whether it requires a valid compiled project, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Verify' and the diagnostic framing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the diagnostic detail and the args/returns blocks. The parenthetical explaining Language(None) vs Language("english") is long but earns its place by clarifying the exact bug being detected; nothing is pure 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately documents the return dict keys, and it covers the sole argument. For a focused static-check tool this is close to complete, though it omits any note on prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be compiled) or the shape of the 'issues' entries.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only gives the parameter name and type, so the description's 'Absolute path to the Ren'Py project root directory' adds real meaning (root directory, absolute requirement) that the schema lacks. With a single parameter fully explained, this is solid.

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: verifying the language picker in screens.rpy against tl/ folders and config.language. It is concrete enough to distinguish from generic file tools, but it never names the closely related siblings tool_check_translation or tool_list_translations, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

It gives a clear usage scenario: catching the misconfiguration where the English button appears to do nothing, plus the dead/missing button cases. It supplies context for when the tool is relevant but offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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