下载资源集翻译

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format based on locale (single file vs. ZIP), the automatic unpacking into a files array, that the returned content is text, that writing to disk is left to the caller (a side-effect disclaimer), and the environment variable requirement. This is comprehensive and beyond what a typical tool description covers.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the main purpose and then cover return behavior, side effects, and prerequisites in a logical flow. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the return format, side effects, and configuration requirements. It does not mention error scenarios or edge cases like missing resource sets, but that is not strictly required for a download tool. The core information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result is present.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds some value by noting that .resx format always returns a ZIP and that multi-language (locale not passed) may return a ZIP, but this largely repeats what the schema's locale description says. It does not go into per-parameter details beyond what is already there, so the addition is modest.

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 exports translation content of a specified resource set from the i18n platform, using a specific verb ('导出'/export) and a specific resource ('资源集翻译'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_resource_sets and list_resource_keys, which list rather than export. The purpose is unambiguous.

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: when you need downloaded translation content. It also provides a key prerequisite (environment variable I18N_API_KEY) that an agent must satisfy. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in function, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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