List terminology book entries for a game localization project — keys, profile facts, constants, order, and position, one per line — to check term consistency before translating.
列出术语书（一行一个实体：key 写法列表 / profile 事实列表 / constant / order / position）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hints | No | 把整理术语书要看的依据也摆出来：每条事实提到了本行哪些写法、每个写法各出现在哪些场次（不含判断） | |
| 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does 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 behavioral context by stating the return format (one entity per line with specific fields), though it does not mention pagination or sorting behavior.
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 states the core action and then clarifies the output format in a parenthetical. There is no redundant or wasted wording.
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 list tool with full schema parameter coverage, the description explains the output shape well enough. It omits usage alternatives and pagination details, but no output schema exists, so the return format disclosure is helpful and largely sufficient.
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 all three parameters (hints, project, workdir) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (列出) and resource (术语书), and describes the output structure (one entity per line with key 写法列表 / profile 事实列表 / constant / order / position). It is clear, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like resource_term_pending_list or resource_term_candidates.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The name and description imply listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other resource_term_* list/manage tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.