Doco Translation Units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 读取 is fully consistent. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by enumerating the exact data exposed: block-level translation units, stable block mapping, source_version, and missing/current/conflict statuses. It does not discuss edge-case behavior, but the output schema and read-only annotations lower the burden.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler, repetition of the title, or irrelevant detail. Every clause contributes useful information about what the tool reads.

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 output schema, rich read-only annotations, and complete parameter-level schema descriptions, the description covers the core semantics well. The only notable gap is usage guidance versus sibling tools, but the resource scope is clear enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the status vocabulary (missing/current/conflict) and clarifying that locale relates to target-language content, which is not fully specified in the parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on document_id versus target_document_id, but the schema already provides those descriptions.

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 the verb 读取 (read) and names a specific resource: block-level translation units plus stable block mapping, source_version, and translation statuses. This makes it clear that the tool is a read operation, distinct from review/write siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus doco_translations or doco_review_translation_unit, and no mention of alternative conditions or exclusions. The verb 读取 implies a read context, but that is implicit rather than explicit guidance.

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