list_languages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that this is a listing operation, providing details about what is included (extension, compile flag, runtime availability) and scoping it to the current machine. While it doesn't mention side effects or failure modes, the read-only nature is evident.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core functionality and includes three specific data points (extension, compile flag, runtime availability). Every word adds value, with no tautology or fluff.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description succinctly states its exact scope and output contents, it is complete. The description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The schema is empty, and the description fully covers what the tool does.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List every language codecalc can execute') and specifies the exact information included (extension, compile flag, runtime availability). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like runtimes_status by focusing on language availability rather than runtime status.

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 implies the tool is used to discover which languages are available for execution on the current machine. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its purpose is clear and the context ('on this machine') signals when to use it compared to other tools.

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