word_analyze把一句中文/英文口语描述解析成感受词与视觉风格。默认纯本地词典（免费、不联网）；本地一个词都没命中且允许时，才上云。返回 score 是相对值不是概率，styles[].matched 是可以直接引用给用户看的命中词。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 要解析的描述，最长 500 字 | |
| quota | No | 已购额度令牌（响应头 X-FS-Quota 的值）。本机也可用环境变量 FS_QUOTA；远端 MCP 客户端没法设环境变量，就用这个参数 | |
| words | No | 返回几个感受词 | |
| styles | No | 返回几个视觉风格 | |
| allow_cloud | No | 本地零命中时是否允许上云（远端默认关闭；显式传 true 才会消耗额度） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / quotaAdded value: +{
+ "description": "已购额度令牌（响应头 X-FS-Quota 的值）。本机也可用环境变量 FS_QUOTA；远端 MCP 客户端没法设环境变量，就用这个参数",
+ "maxLength": 256,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
注解已声明 readOnlyHint 与 openWorldHint，描述在此之上补充了关键行为：默认离线免费、仅在本地零命中时联网、上云会消耗额度。还澄清了返回值语义（score 是相对值不是概率，styles[].matched 可直接引用给用户），这些都不在注解或 schema 中。未涉及延迟、失败回退等细节，故为 4。
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?
三句话，先讲功能，再讲本地/上云策略，最后讲返回值语义，信息前置且无冗余。分号串接略显紧凑，但整体利用率高。
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?
无 output schema，描述主动交代了 score 与 styles[].matched 的返回语义，补上了这一缺口；5 个参数全部有 schema 说明，安全属性由注解覆盖。仅缺少云端失败或超限时的行为说明，整体对调用决策已足够。
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 描述覆盖率 100%，quota、words、styles、allow_cloud 均已有独立说明，描述只需补充关联语义。描述确实点出了“允许时才上云”这一与 allow_cloud 呼应的条件，但未对 words/styles 的数量取舍给出建议，属于基线水平。
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?
明确说明动词+资源（把中文/英文口语描述解析成感受词与视觉风格），并限定输入形态。与 word_lookup / word_list / style_get 等兄弟工具区别明显，agent 无需打开 schema 即可判断这是“整句解析”而非“查单词语料”。
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?
给出了默认本地、零命中且 allow_cloud 为真才上云的成本规则，隐含说明了调用代价，但没有明确说明何时该用本工具而非 word_lookup/style_get，也没有列出排除条件。使用场景基本靠读者从功能推断。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.