Reads existing in-game translations to build a translation memory, keeping the game read-only and excluding observed pairs from the termbase.
把游戏里已有的译文读进来，沉淀成翻译记忆（只读游戏；观察出来的对应不进术语书）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| language | No | 读哪个语言目录（留空用项目配置的目标语言） | |
| min_occurrences | No | 同一原文至少出现几次才算「重复且一致」——**只报数**，不建候选 | |
| max_candidate_length | No | 超过这个长度的原文不参与「重复且一致」的统计 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
注解声明 readOnlyHint=false、destructiveHint=true，但描述完全没有披露任何破坏性/写入行为，只说「只读游戏」，容易让 agent 误判这是安全只读操作。描述唯一补充的行为信息是「观察出来的对应不进术语书」，略有一点价值，但对一个被标记为破坏性的工具远远不够。
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?
单句加括号，核心动作前置，没有冗余句子。但整体偏压缩、信息密度高，部分约束（如只读范围）表述含糊，略微牺牲了清晰度。
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?
这是一个 5 参数、被标记 destructive、且无 output schema 的写入型工具，描述却未说明写入翻译记忆的性质、是否会覆盖既有条目、返回什么。对一个破坏性工具来说，关键上下文缺失。
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%，五个参数（project、workdir、language、min_occurrences、max_candidate_length）都已有独立说明，描述只需做摘要。描述仅笼统提到「重复且一致」的概念，未补充 schema 之外的语义，符合覆盖率高的基线 3。
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?
明确了一个具体的动词和资源：读取游戏内已有译文并沉淀为翻译记忆。括号里的提示还划定了边界与术语类工具的差异（观察出来的对应不写进术语书），但未点出具体兄弟工具名称。
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?
使用场景只能从目的句中推断（想要从现有译文构建翻译记忆时用）。没有任何「何时用 / 何时不用」的说明，也没有与 scan、resource_term_candidates 等兄弟工具的取舍指引。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.