List Languages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions that BCP-47 codes work and that some have friendly names, which gives a hint of behavior but doesn't disclose return format or any other constraints. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a clarifying note about BCP-47. No wasted words.

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 listing tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned and the scope. No output schema exists, but the description covers what an agent needs to know to call it.

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 the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by explaining that it returns recognized codes and friendly names, which compensates for the lack of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description maintains that.

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 the tool lists language codes and names that Shipi18n recognizes, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check, diff, review, translate) by being a listing operation.

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 context on when to use it: to get recognized language codes and friendly names, and notes that any BCP-47 code works. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but for a list tool the usage is self-evident among the siblings.

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