language_facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope context by naming the three fact categories, but does not discuss output format, permissions, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the annotations and tool name imply.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon and a compact list of three facts. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only inspector with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the description adequately tells the agent what facts will be returned. It does not define output structure or relation to sibling tools, which leaves a small gap for a tool with no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the three optional parameters already has its own schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning or syntax beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (查看) and resource (语言包事实), then enumerates the three fact categories: recognized language codes, font sources, and current contents of the language directory. Clear enough to call, but it does not differentiate itself from any sibling tool, so it cannot reach a 5.

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 implies when to use it by listing the facts it exposes, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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