text_martian

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the mapping-table limitation, but does not state what happens to unmapped characters (e.g., left unchanged or error), nor the return format. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

One compact sentence with a semicolon separation conveys tool name, both modes, and a limitation; every word is informative.

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?

For a simple two-parameter conversion tool, it covers purpose, modes, and the key limitation. However, it omits edge-case behavior for unmapped characters and output details, which are relevant for a text transformation tool without 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?

Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the action enum values with their input/output semantics. The text parameter's meaning is inferable from context, though not explicitly described; the default is already in the schema.

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 '火星文转换' clearly identifies the tool as Martian text conversion and enumerates the two direction-specific actions (to_martian and to_chinese) with the mapping-table limitation, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling text tools.

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?

It states when to use each action: to_martian for Chinese-to-Martian and to_chinese for Martian-to-Chinese, and adds the constraint '仅支持映射表内字符' as an exclusion. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, so a high but not perfect score.

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