list_languages

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that no runtimes are executed, explains what 'installed', 'supported', and 'resolved' mean, and clarifies the separate tier reliability axis. This prevents an agent from over-trusting the status field and is exactly the transparency needed.

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 long but dense; the first line states the core purpose and the rest explains two subtle concepts that could easily be misinterpreted. The second paragraph about tier vs status earns its place and prevents a common misreading.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the important semantics thoroughly. The only gap is a small internal inconsistency: it references promoting a runtime to 'available' while the status enumeration only mentions 'installed' and 'supported'.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing unspecified. The description appropriately uses the space to explain output semantics instead, which is the right trade-off.

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 opening sentence clearly identifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('every language codecalc can execute'), and the fields returned (extension, compile flag, machine resolution). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as runtimes_status, so it narrowly misses 5.

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 explicitly warns that status_basis is 'resolved' and that nothing was executed to check, and it directs the user to codecalc doctor --deep for actual verification. This provides a clear when-not-to-rely-on-this-tool signal, but it never names an alternative MCP sibling tool for related tasks.

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