获取 i18n 替换配置

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an authentication requirement, a returned data point ('含 configJson'), and '获取'/get conveys read-only semantics. It does not describe not-found or invalid-key behavior, leaving a minor gap.

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 delivers purpose, scope, return content, and a setup prerequisite, with the key behavior front-loaded. Every clause adds information and there is no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states the lookup key, the result's key content, and the environment requirement. Missing error or not-found behavior is a minor gap relative to the tool's low complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'name' has full schema coverage ('配置名称'), and the description only reaffirms lookup by name. No additional type, format, or usage details are added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 combines a specific verb ('获取/retrieve'), a clear resource ('i18n 平台上保存的替换配置'), and a selection method ('按名称'), while naming a key return field ('configJson'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_profiles and save_profile.

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 know the exact config name ('按名称获取'), and it states the prerequisite '需配置环境变量 I18N_API_KEY'. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the alternative tool for listing configs.

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