List translation keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; doesn't consume credits,' which is valuable safety information. It also mentions pagination and that the language value is returned 'alongside the all_locales map,' giving a hint about output structure. This is a strong disclosure for a read-only list 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 two sentences and every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs parameter guidance and a read-only note into a compact, scannable format. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 that there are 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, pagination, filtering options, read-only behavior, and a hint at the return structure (resolved value + all_locales map). It stops short of describing exact response layout, but for a list tool this is adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by giving a concrete example for search ('e.g. 'hero.' returns hero.headline, hero.cta, …') and clarifying how scope and lang interact with the returned data. This goes beyond the schema's dry property listings.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the project's translation keys (paginated).' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_galleries and list_pages, which handle different resource types. The pagination detail further sets expectations.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool by explaining the search, scope, and lang parameters ('Use `search` for substring match... `scope` to narrow... `lang` to pick...'). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the parameter guidance gives enough contextual clarity for typical usage.

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