Describe language runtime schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful context about the tool's role in service creation, but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as return format or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The first sentence states what it does, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, provides a usage scenario, and gives an example. It does not mention related tools like 'list_language_runtime_providers' as a prerequisite or alternative, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 only defines 'language' as a required string with no description. The description partially compensates by giving an example value ('go') and implying it refers to a runtime provider identifier. However, it does not explain the range of acceptable values or any formatting constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Specifies the exact action: 'Return the config field schema for a language runtime provider' with a concrete example ('such as go'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'list_language_runtime_providers' by focusing on a single provider's schema rather than listing providers.

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?

Provides explicit usage context ('Use before creating a service') and a clear rationale ('fill cwd/env/config fields instead of guessing a command string'). Does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the 'instead of guessing' phrasing effectively communicates when not to rely on it.

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