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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a read, which is non-destructive, and lists the three status components. However, it does not disclose return format, potential side effects (e.g., might refresh data), or permissions. For a simple read tool, some additional context would be useful.

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, direct sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information; it earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its main returns (status of three components). It could be more complete by mentioning the response format (e.g., JSON structure or progress percentage), but it is sufficient for a simple status read.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of the (nonexistent) properties. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. It does not miss anything.

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 a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (status of overlay, offline model, and translation progress). It distinguishes from sibling tools: show_bilingual_controls and set_bilingual_mode are about controls and mode setting, while this is about reading status.

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—call this tool when you need to read status—but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the siblings or provide any exclusion criteria. The usage is intuitive but not explicitly guided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing potential side effects, persistence of the mode, or how it affects ongoing translation activities. This is under-transparent for a state-changing tool.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action and the set of options, making it highly concise and direct.

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 a simple setter tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but lacks contextual details. It does not clarify what 'page pre-translation' entails, whether the setting is global or per-session, or how it interacts with the sibling tools. Even for a simple tool, more context is needed, especially without annotations or an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does list the three modes (关闭, 悬停翻译, 页面预翻译) aligning with the enum values (off, hover, preload), which adds meaning beyond the raw enum. However, it does not explain the practical implications of each mode, so compensation is only partial.

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's function: switching between off, hover translation, and page pre-translation modes. It uses a specific verb (切换) and a defined resource (bilingual translation mode). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the tool name and sibling context make its purpose distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_bilingual_controls or get_bilingual_status. There are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It simply says 'show', implying a non-destructive UI action, but it does not disclose what the control card contains, whether it triggers any side effects, or what the user should expect. This is minimal disclosure.

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 short sentence, concise and to the point. It adds the 'control card' detail beyond the title, but it is still largely redundant with the title, preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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?

As a parameterless tool, the description is minimally sufficient to convey the basic action, but it fails to provide context about sibling tools or the purpose/content of the control card. Given the simplicity, this is an average level of completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related complexity.

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 uses a clear verb ('显示' / show) and resource ('中英双语增强器控制卡' / bilingual enhancer control card), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that set mode or get status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus set_bilingual_mode or get_bilingual_status. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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