plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a preview of the run order, which reinforces the non-mutating nature, but says nothing about fallback behavior, cost, or what the returned plan actually contains beyond 'region → ordered stages'. Adequate but thin given annotations carry the main load.

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 compact sentence with zero waste, front-loading the concrete outcome (region → ordered stages). The nested parenthetical is slightly dense for a one-liner but nothing is redundant.

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, the description should help an agent understand the returned plan, but it only broadly sketches the shape. It also references returned 'schedulers' only through the schema text, not the description, leaving the return contract under-explained for a planning tool.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters including the 'predecessors' enum and 'scheduler' default. The description only alludes to the scheduler ('可指定调度策略'), adding nothing beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('看' – view/preview) and resource (the order in which the translation run will proceed: region → ordered stages), which is distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling 'translate'. However, it does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. translate, tasks, graph_show), so an agent must infer that this is a dry-run/planning preview.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The implied use (inspect the execution order before/instead of running 'translate') is left entirely to inference.

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