seerr_list_languages

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the safe read-only nature. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a noun phrase; it doesn't describe the return format, whether it includes regional variants, or any other traits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add any meaningful behavioral information beyond what the name and output schema already imply.

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 short sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. The output schema will handle return-value details, and the description identifies exactly what data is being listed. No additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and since there are no parameter semantics to clarify, this score is appropriate.

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 'Languages supported by TMDB' clearly indicates the tool returns a list of languages from TMDB, which is distinct from sibling tools that list regions, genres, or watch providers. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the name and context imply it. It is not a tautology because it identifies the data source, but it doesn't differentiate from other list tools beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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