get_repository_languages

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what precisely constitutes 'language statistics.' This is minimal disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it repeats the parameter list and definitions already present in the input schema. This redundant Args block wastes space and could be omitted to make the description more concise.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the tool is simple and the output schema covers return values. The description states the essential purpose and parameters, which is sufficient for a basic get operation. It lacks usage differentiation from siblings, but this is partly offset by the clear purpose statement.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the Args section merely restates the parameter names with trivial definitions ('The repository owner', 'The repository name'), adding little beyond the schema's own property titles. No examples, formats, or additional constraints are given.

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 'Fetch language statistics for a repository' uses a specific verb 'fetch' and defines the resource (language statistics). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repository or analyze_repository, which focus on different aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states the function and parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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