lokalise_list_system_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully handles behavioral context. It describes the return data (ISO codes, native names, RTL status, plural forms) and states it is 'Essential before adding new target languages,' indicating a read-only, non-destructive action.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded, clear, and free of extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use cases, and return value summary.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and why it matters. It covers all relevant context: use cases, parameters, and return fields, making it complete for a list tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds 'Optional: limit (100), page,' reinforcing defaults but not adding meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Discovers all languages available in Lokalise platform' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_list_project_languages' by clarifying it returns platform-level languages, not project-specific ones.

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 explicitly lists when to use: 'before project setup, verify language codes, or check RTL/plural form support.' It implies not to use for project-specific language queries, but does not name alternative sibling tools directly.

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