staleness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool separates stale, missing, and unavailable translations and is the precise path after knowledge changes. It does not describe return shape, permissions, or side effects, leaving moderate value beyond structured fields.

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?

One compact sentence with a parenthetical qualifier. The core action is front-loaded with zero filler, though the compressed phrasing is slightly terse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It names the report categories but does not specify the output shape (e.g., list of keys, counts) or ordering, leaving an agent with some uncertainty about what a call actually returns.

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% and both parameters (project, workdir) are fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb (点名/call out) and resource (该重做的译文/translations needing redo), and breaks the report into three named categories (过期/缺失/不可用). It also hints at the triggering condition (知识改了/knowledge changed) to differentiate from sibling reporting tools, though it does not name a sibling directly.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a condition: when knowledge has changed, use this for precise replenishment. No when-not-to-use or named alternatives are given, but the triggering context is clear and actionable.

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