Initialize a gametrans workspace to start game localization, auto-detecting the engine and setting up translation configuration for the project.
初始化 gametrans 工作区（自动探测引擎）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | 指定引擎支持包（默认自动探测） | |
| project | No | 游戏项目根目录（默认当前目录） | |
| workdir | No | 工作区目录，默认 <项目>/.gametrans | |
| provider | No | 翻译 provider（不指定就不写进项目，跟全局层/出厂默认走） | |
| target_language | No | 目标语言 | zh_CN |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description only adds the auto-detect engine behavior and does not explain what gets created or overwritten, which is important context for a destructive initialization tool.
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 a single compact phrase that is front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place and there is no 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?
With five fully documented optional parameters and annotations covering destructiveness, the structured fields carry most of the burden. However, the description omits key init semantics such as whether an existing workspace is overwritten, so it is only minimally complete.
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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting the engine auto-detection default, making the baseline score 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: initializing the gametrans workspace, with an engine auto-detection default. It is clear enough to distinguish from general status/config tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like engine_detect or project_status.
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?
It describes the action but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent can only infer that this is for first-time setup, without explicit context about ordering or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.