dry_run_mod

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden and largely does: it discloses that no files are written, that the AI translation API is called and tokens are consumed (bounded by limit), that no resource pack is generated, and that the source jar is untouched. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior, but the mutation-and-cost profile is unusually well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the no-write guarantee in bold, followed by cost warning and args/returns blocks. The structure is easy to scan; the cost warning is slightly verbose and the 'Returns' note partly duplicates the output schema.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: side effects (none on disk), cost (token spend), and parameter meaning. Return-value detail is minimal, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it documents all three: jar_path as an absolute path, limit as the max sampled entries (default 20), and batch_size as entries per batch (default 15). This compensates well for the empty schema descriptions, though the relationship between limit and batch_size could be spelled out.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('解析单个模组并抽样翻译') plus the scope constraint of not writing files, which lets an agent distinguish it from translate_mod. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, preview_mod, whose name suggests overlapping purpose.

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?

Gives clear usage context: '只用来快速感受翻译质量' (only for quickly sensing translation quality) and warns about token consumption. It does not, however, name the alternative tool to use when the agent actually wants a full translation or a written output.

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