显示中英双语增强器

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.