explain_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the basic transformation (translating terms to plain language), but does not disclose any limitations, edge cases, or output specifics. Since this is a simple, non-mutating text tool, the lack of extra context is not severe, but it is still only minimally sufficient.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action ('把…翻译成大白话'), with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and structurally clear.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, and the description adequately captures its core purpose. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and sibling differentiation, which prevents a higher score given the existence of related tools like 'translate_doctor_note'.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds small context by specifying text types ('医嘱、诊断、检查报告') and implying '逐个' (one-by-one) behavior, but this does not significantly go beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verb ('翻译' / translate) and resource ('医学文字里的专业术语' / professional terms in medical text), clearly stating that terms are explained one by one in plain language. This makes the function clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'translate_doctor_note', though the term-level focus implicitly differentiates.

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 use when a user wants plain-language explanations of medical terms, but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance nor mentions alternatives among sibling tools. This is implied usage rather than clear context.

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