tool_list_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that it scans game/tl/, enumerates exactly what is counted per language (files, dialogue blocks, string entries, GUI files), and surfaces the project source language. It doesn't state read-only behavior explicitly or what happens on a bad path, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by well-labeled Args and Returns blocks; each sentence conveys concrete information. The per-key return enumeration is slightly listy but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does, spelling out the dict shape including every language-level field and the source_language key. Combined with the Args entry, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 single parameter is merely typed as string, so the description's "Absolute path to the Ren'Py project root directory" is essential added meaning — it tells the agent the path must be absolute and must point at the project root, not a subfolder.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (translation languages in a Ren'Py project), and immediately scopes it by naming the scanned directory (game/tl/) and the per-language report contents. An agent can distinguish this from tool_check_translation, which validates, versus this, which enumerates.

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?

"Use this first to see what translations exist before checking them" gives clear sequencing guidance toward a checking step, and the enumeration framing implies it precedes validation. It stops short of explicitly naming tool_check_translation as the alternative, so it's not a full 5.

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