github_list_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. The description states the read-only nature (getting breakdown data) which implies a safe read operation, but doesn't disclose rate limits, required authentication, or what happens for empty repos. It's an adequate but not rich characterization of behavior.

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 compact with a one-line purpose statement and concise Args list. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section could be merged more elegantly. No wasteful prose.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it doesn't clarify what 'session_name' does or any edge cases (e.g., empty repository languages). Given the tool's simplicity, this is roughly minimum viable but could benefit from noting the session requirement.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description lists the three params with brief meaning (owner, repo, session). However, session_name is mentioned with no clarification of its purpose. The description adds a minimal layer of meaning beyond the bare schema names but doesn't explain the session concept or provide format/baseline expectations.

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 it gets the language breakdown for a repository (bytes per language), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_list_repos and github_get_repo by focusing specifically on language breakdown.

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 'Args' section clarifies the parameters, but the description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_get_repo or github_list_topics. There's a clear implied usage context (needs a specific repo) but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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