Language By Indexer

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or mutability. The word 'Group' implies aggregation but lacks details on data limits or response structure, leaving much unknown.

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 brief (one short sentence), which is efficient but severely under-informative. It lacks structure and front-loads no critical details beyond the basic purpose. The sentence earns its place but does not compensate for missing 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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It provides no explanation of parameters, return values, or behavior, making it nearly useless for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds zero information about any parameter. Common parameters like 'to', 'from', 'app', 'page', etc. are left entirely unexplained, despite the description being the only source of semantics.

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 groups history languages by indexer. It uses a specific verb ('Group') and identifies the resource ('history languages') and grouping dimension ('by indexer'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'codec_by_indexer' or 'quality_by_indexer' which follow the same pattern.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar groupings (e.g., codec_by_indexer), the description fails to clarify the specific use case or conditions.

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