list_languages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' accuritely signals a non-destructive read operation, and the sentence adds useful context about what the ids are for. A small gap is that it doesn't detail the exact response shape, but for a zero-parameter list endpoint this is adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the action, the scope, and the intended use of the returned ids.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the returned values (languages and ids), and the domain context. Nothing needed for an agent to decide to call it is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is satisfied, and the description's note about id usage is not parameter-related but remains harmless context.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('languages Radarr knows'), and adds why the ids matter ('used in profiles and release filters'). It clearly differentiates this read-only lookup from the movie/queue/config sibling tools.

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 phrase 'ids used in profiles and release filters' gives an agent a clear context for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool provides language data, so that omission is minor.

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