read_translation

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

The description offers minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the word 'read', which implies a non-mutating operation. It does not describe the return format, filtering behavior (despite the filter parameter), error handling, or permissions, leaving the agent without critical operational context.

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 extremely short but under-specified; it essentially restates the tool name with 'file' appended. While there is no wordiness, it fails to provide necessary information, making it under-specification rather than good conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns and how it behaves, but it does not. The tool has only 2 parameters, but the description is too sparse to be considered complete for effective use.

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?

The schema fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage: 'path' and 'filter' each have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'read' and the resource 'translation file', making the basic action understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_translations or read_resource, and lacks details on what reading entails (e.g., returning key/value pairs).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The description only states the action without any context about suitable scenarios or comparisons to other translation-related tools.

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