Translate D&D 5e terminology between English and Chinese. Specify direction (en2zh or zh2en) to get the corresponding term for clear game communication.
中英术语映射（en2zh / zh2en）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | ||
| direction | No | en2zh |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It merely states the mapping function without indicating whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or how it handles edge cases. No mention of error conditions, rate limits, or expected output structure, making behavioral expectations unclear.
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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise and avoids verbosity. However, it's so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. The information is front-loaded, but the structure lacks any breakdown or expansion, making it feel incomplete.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the term parameter accepts, how direction is used, what the return value looks like, or any error behavior. An agent would have no idea how to call this tool correctly without additional context.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It indirectly references the direction parameter by listing 'en2zh / zh2en', but it never describes the 'term' parameter or its expected format. The default for direction is not explained beyond the direction list, and no examples are given, leaving both parameters under-specified.
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 clear verb-resource pair: mapping terms between Chinese and English, and explicitly lists the supported directions (en2zh / zh2en). This makes the tool's purpose specific and distinct from the unrelated sibling tools, though it doesn't elaborate on whether it's a direct translation or a lookup of a terminology database.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains no translation-related tools, so there's no explicit comparison, but the description also fails to mention any prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.