game_locale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose read vs. write operations and the runtime scope. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the locale persists), dependencies such as preloaded translations, or the shape of get/translate results.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool has three distinct modes but no output schema and no per-action behavior explanation. An agent still lacks information about what get returns, what locale is used for translate, and what happens when set is called with an invalid locale.

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 complete, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only a compact mapping of the three actions to the tool's behavior; it doesn't clarify per-mode parameter requirements beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('set/get locale and translate strings') and the runtime qualifier clarifies scope. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling manage_translations, so it misses the full differentiation that would earn a 5.

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?

'At runtime' provides a clear general usage context and implies a distinction from design-time translation management, but the description never mentions alternatives or states when-not to use this tool. The action values in the schema carry some of the guidance.

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