切换双语翻译模式

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.