中文文本清洗/脱敏

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds specific transformations (normalization, masking) that occur, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with a list of operations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every phrase is meaningful. No redundant information.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description implies the result is the cleaned text. With rich schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand functionality. Minor gap: return format not detailed.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described in Chinese. The description provides a summary but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool normalizes Chinese text with specific operations (whitespace normalization, full/half-width conversion, control character removal) and optional masking of sensitive data. The verb '清洗' (clean) and resource '中文文本' (Chinese text) are specific. No sibling tool performs text normalization, so it is well-distinguished.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: for cleaning Chinese text and optionally masking personal information. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but given no similar sibling tools, the context is clear.

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