get_translations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination (page, size) and optional language filtering, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., missing project), or that it is read-only. While the pagination details are helpful, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise: a single sentence stating the tool's purpose plus a structured Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. The format is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (confirmed by context), the description need not detail return values. It covers all parameters adequately. However, it does not address potential errors or edge cases. For a relatively simple retrieval tool, it is mostly complete, but could mention that the output structure is defined by the output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: project_id as numeric ID, languages as optional list of tags with behavior when omitted, page as 0-indexed with default, size as default 20. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 tool retrieves translations for keys in a Tolgee project. It specifies the action ('get') and the resource ('translations'), and it differentiates from sibling mutation tools like set_translations or create_or_update_translations. The verb 'Get' and resource 'translations' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear parameter explanations and default values, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_keys or export_translations. The context of a read operation is implicit, but no direct guidance on when not to use it is given. However, the Args section effectively describes usage.

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