Interface Translation List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: translations live in Locale storage rather than as entities, only translated strings are returned, and `count` reflects the total before paging. It does not state permission requirements, but it goes well beyond a generic 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 front-loaded with purpose and then organized into focused paragraphs covering storage, filtering, and counting. The background on Locale storage and `drush locale:export` earns its place by explaining why no entity resource exists. It is slightly long but not wasteful.

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 the unusual storage model and an existing output schema, the description provides the key context an agent needs: what is listed, how language filtering works, which filter keys are accepted, and how count relates to paging. Pagination parameter details are the only notable omission, but the output schema covers return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `langcode` narrowing and that `filters` accepts `search` and `context`, adding real semantic value. However, `page_limit` and `page_offset` are only implied by 'before paging' and are not described, leaving a gap for 2 of the 4 parameters.

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 interface translations Drupal holds.' It also distinguishes this tool from entity-based listing by explaining there is no `interface_translation` resource, which helps an agent separate it from content translation siblings.

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 implied (

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