Config Translation List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (each mapping plus the entity type it translates) and the notable caveat that the mapping's config-name list is empty until Drupal builds it. It omits pagination behavior despite exposing a page_limit parameter, but the substantive behavioral context is present.

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, but the middle paragraph about the 404 that read like a missing module is backstory justifying the tool's design rather than helping an agent select or call it. It is informative but not tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the returned structure and the empty config-name list. For a one-parameter list tool the definition is essentially complete, only missing any note on the paging parameter.

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 0% and the single page_limit parameter is never mentioned in the description, so it adds no meaning about paging, defaults, or limits. The description must compensate for the low coverage and does not.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the config objects that support translation.' It is distinct from the entity-based translation tools, and it names config_translation_add as the downstream consumer, though it never explicitly contrasts with other list siblings like interface_translation_list.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing line says 'the id and the entity type are what config_translation_add needs,' which hints this is a precursor step. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative to choose between.

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