sonarr_list_language

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description is consistent with a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as pagination, sorting, or return format. It does not contradict the annotations, so a neutral 3 is appropriate.

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 two-word sentence: 'List languages.' It is perfectly concise with zero wasted content. For a no-parameter read-only list tool, this length is appropriate and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's trivial complexity (no params, output schema exists), the description is nearly sufficient. It describes the core action but omits any clarifying context, such as what languages are available or whether this returns system-defined languages. However, the output schema likely covers return structure, so the gap is minor.

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 and input schema coverage is 100% (empty). The rubric specifies a baseline of 4 when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but there is nothing to add, so the baseline holds.

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 languages' clearly states the action (list) and resource (languages) with a verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_get_language by explicitly indicating a plural list operation, though it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., 'all available 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonarr_get_language or sonarr_list_languageprofile. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the name implies a simple listing, the description itself does not explain usage.

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