octri_list_languages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only catalogue of languages plus their accepted preference keys, which gives the agent a sense of the return shape, but it never explicitly states that the operation is non-mutating, what auth it needs, or how the project fallback behaves.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its payload. No filler, though a slightly sharper verb would improve scannability.

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 read-only listing with one fully-described parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not state the return format (list of language/key mappings) or how project selection affects results, leaving the agent to infer basic behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is documented in the schema ('falls back to the CLI's selected project'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about project scope or how language results vary per project.

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 states a specific resource ('the SDK generator's language catalogue') and adds the useful detail that each language maps to preference keys. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and doesn't reference related tools such as get_sdk_settings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. Since get_sdk_settings / set_sdk_settings deal with preferences, an agent would reasonably wonder whether language preference keys come from here or from those tools, and the description resolves nothing.

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