whatsms_admin_get_languages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, return format, or any limitations. For a simple list retrieval this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and simple semantics, the description adequately conveys what the tool does. It could mention the return shape (e.g., 'returns a list of language codes'), but the phrase 'Get all available languages' already implies a list of languages, making it sufficiently complete.

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 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter details because none exist; baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'all available languages' and clearly states the scope ('from the WhatSMS platform'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_users or get_roles, which target different resources.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (whenever the list of languages is needed) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by resource name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though no true alternatives exist among siblings for this resource.

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