get_available_languages

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-mutating, or free of side effects. It also fails to mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single purpose statement and a short argument list. There is no redundant or filler text, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It does not elaborate on return values (which are covered by the output schema) or usage context, but given the minimal complexity, it is reasonably complete. The lack of usage guidance is a minor gap and is already penalized in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 description clarifies the meaning of the sole schema parameter video_url_or_id by stating it accepts either a YouTube video URL or a video ID. This adds value beyond the schema, which only specifies the type as string. The mention of 'ctx' is extraneous since it is not in the schema, but it does not detract from the added clarity.

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's function: 'Get available transcript languages for a YouTube video.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('available transcript languages'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_transcript, search_transcript, and get_transcript_summary.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention typical workflows, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not suggest using this tool before get_transcript to check available languages.

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