get_supported_languages

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a list operation, what information is returned (language names and ISO codes), and that no API key is required. For a simple read-only tool without side effects or rate-limit notes, this is sufficient, though it doesn't comment on pagination or response structure.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the purpose, scope, return format, and auth requirement with zero redundancy or filler. All information is front-loaded and necessary.

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, schema-less, output-schema-less tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what resource is listed, what content type it returns, and the authentication context. Nothing material is missing.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly doesn't introduce any parameters and adds only a non-parameter note about API key requirements, which is helpful context.

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 states the exact verb 'List' and resource 'all languages supported by Scriptivox for audio/video transcription,' and adds that it returns names and ISO codes. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like pricing, product info, or transcription operations.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need to know which languages are supported, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusion statements beyond the 'No API key required' note. It is adequate but not instructional.

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