读取双语增强器状态

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.