list_languages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation signals a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not mention pagination behavior, the meaning of 'distinct', or any side effects or prerequisites. Since the annotation already covers safety, the description's minimalism earns a below-average score for transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though the lack of context reduces its overall utility. Nevertheless, conciseness itself is good.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint, this tool has moderate complexity, but the description is extremely thin. It does not explain the tool's place in the broader API, what distinct languages means, or how the filter parameters work. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with appropriate parameters.

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%, and the description does not compensate for the 9-parameter input schema. The parameters include generic pagination/filter fields like page, size, sort, search, and various ID filters, but nothing explains how these affect the list of languages. The agent is left without guidance on parameter meaning or usage.

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 'List distinct languages.' uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'languages', so the primary purpose is evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming 'languages' as the target, though it does not elaborate on what 'languages' refers to (e.g., book languages, metadata languages).

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 description gives no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_authors, list_tags, or other list_* tools. It only provides the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema, without any explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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