get-source-languages

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey safety and behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is useful but not elaborated. It does not mention whether authentication is required, what format the list takes (e.g., codes or names), or any potential side effects, though for a simple list retrieval, this may be sufficient. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition. For a tool with no parameters, this level of conciseness is ideal.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does, though it does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., language codes vs. names). Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete, but a single detail about the output format would make it fully self-contained.

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, and the schema is effectively complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from it.

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 list of available source languages for translation.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('source languages'), and the phrase 'for translation' provides context. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-target-languages' without needing to read the sibling's description.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a list of source languages is needed—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The presence of sibling tools like 'get-target-languages' suggests a related counterpart, but the description does not guide the agent to choose between them explicitly.

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