localization_status

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered structurally. The description adds genuine domain semantics beyond them: it defines 'stale' as the source changing after translation and notes such items are marked needs_review, and it explains that `next` names the recommended language. That is real behavioral value on top of the annotations.

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 scope ('Per target language') is front-loaded and the parenthetical definition of stale is dense but earns its place. Two short sentences carry the whole payload with little waste, though the parenthetical is slightly overstuffed.

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 re-explained, and the description helpfully glosses the `next` field. However, for a tool with one undocumented required parameter and no routing guidance relative to localization siblings, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 `path` parameter has no description in either the schema or the description text. With one required parameter and no explanation of what path refers to (project root, locale directory, etc.), the description 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: per target language counts of player-facing texts that are translated, missing, or stale. An agent can tell it is a localization reporting tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like localization_pending or localization_set, which an agent might otherwise consider.

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 explains what is reported but never says when to call this tool, what preconditions apply (e.g. a project must be initialized/scanned), or how it relates to localization_pending and localization_set. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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