Translation Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no statement about what the status values mean, no note on cost or side effects. Only the verb 'Get' weakly implies a read-only operation, and the description never states it explicitly.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the resource named up front, so it is well-formed structurally. But brevity here is under-specification rather than precision — the sentence is too thin to make the tool safely callable.

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 shape need not be described. Still, with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an unspecified domain of entity types, an agent cannot determine valid inputs or the meaning of the returned status for 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 description coverage is 0% — neither entity_type nor entity_id has any documentation. The description says only 'for an entity,' which does not reveal valid entity_type values, whether entity_id is a numeric ID or UUID, or what happens for non-translatable types. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Get) and resource (translation status), so the operation is identifiable. However, 'an entity' is vague — the tool never says whether it covers nodes, taxonomy terms, config, or all translatable entity types — and it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like translation_add or content_translation_enable.

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?

No guidance about when to call this versus translation_add, translation_update, or the language_* tools. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as whether content translation must already be enabled for the entity type before status can be queried.

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