UI 术语翻译

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the translation produces front-end terminology and executable prompts but does not disclose behavior with invalid input, completeness guarantees, or processing details. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource without any fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the purpose, achieving high conciseness.

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 only 3 simple string parameters with full schema descriptions and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient high-level context. A minor gap is lack of examples or edge case notes, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description (e.g., '用户原始描述' for description). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline for full coverage.

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 translates user page modification descriptions into front-end terminology and executable prompts. It uses specific verb 'translate' and specifies resources, distinguishing it from siblings like acceptance_generate or debug_guide which handle different tasks.

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 usage for translation tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool compared to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, relying on user inference.

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