更新专业术语词表

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key constraints (no uncertain/cross-line replacements) and its title-scoped behavior, but does not mention whether existing rules are overwritten, permission requirements, or other mutation side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes necessary scope and constraints without filler. It is highly concise while remaining informative.

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 mutation tool with four required parameters and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse: it does not provide usage alternatives or explain rule_name. The output schema covers return shape, but overall behavioral and parameter completeness remain partial.

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%, but the description adds meaning by indicating that wrong/right form a typo replacement pair and that title_keywords scope the rule via '书名限定词表'. However, rule_name is not semantically addressed, leaving a gap for one of the four required parameters.

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?

Description states a specific action: based on verified page evidence, add a clear typo replacement to a title-scoped glossary. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_term_glossary (read-only) and other extraction/diagnosis tools.

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 provides clear usage context: only use with verified page evidence, and explicitly excludes uncertain or cross-line replacements. It does not name alternative tools, but the when/when-not conditions are clearly stated.

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