github_repos_list_languages

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'list' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose what is returned (e.g., object of language names to bytes) or any potential side effects. The description is minimal.

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?

Extremely concise at three words, with no wasted information. However, it may be overly terse; some additional context could be useful without sacrificing conciseness.

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 list tool, the description is minimal but sufficient to convey the action. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., mapping of language names to bytes). It barely meets minimum viability.

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 has 100% coverage with basic descriptions ('owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per rules, baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: list repository languages. It is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_repos_list_activities or github_repos_list_branches, which also list repository-related data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to similar list tools.

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