list_languages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavioral detail: it defines level, translate, and identify value semantics and notes data quirks like Latvian/Slovenian and Norwegian. It does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive behavior, but the listing purpose is clear.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads the main purpose before field definitions. The final Norwegian caveat is a bit awkward and uses the undefined term 'card', but overall it avoids bloat.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the key returned fields and their value meanings. It could more explicitly describe the overall return shape, but the critical semantics are present.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the schema is empty.

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 identifies the resource as the model's supported languages and describes the support-strength fields. It does not explicitly route against siblings like identify_language or translate, but the purpose is still clear.

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 explains the returned fields but gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as identify_language, translate, or transcribe. Usage is only loosely implied.

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