pack

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

注解声明了 destructiveHint=true 和 readOnlyHint=false，因此安全配置由结构化数据承担。但描述没有增加任何内容——没有说明会写入或覆盖什么（例如现有补丁文件），没有说明写入位置，也没有说明打包是否会改变源产品。

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?

一个简洁且前置核心信息的句子，没有任何冗余内容。尺寸与其说是一份完整定义，不如说更像一段标语，但没有任何浪费。

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?

没有输出 schema，并且是一个带有 destructive 提示的变更类工具，描述对于一个会写入磁盘产物的命令来说太过单薄。补丁生成在哪里、是否会覆盖先前的输出、需要哪些输入产物——这些内容都缺失了。

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?

两个参数（project、workdir）的 schema 描述覆盖率为 100%，因此 schema 已经记录了它们的含义和默认值。描述未增加任何语法或语义细节，这是 schema 承担主要说明工作时的基线情况。

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?

明确给出了动词（封包）+ 资源（翻译产物）+ 产出物（可分发补丁），是一个非常具体且易于识别的目标。但它并未说明使其与诸如 writeback/unify 之类的同类工具区分开来的原因。

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?

没有说明何时使用此工具、前置条件是什么，也没有提及替代方案。打包在翻译流水线中的位置（在 translate 之后）只能靠推测，没有提供任何指导。

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