List supported languages

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by defining maturity semantics (beta: verified at 100% against two gold lexicons; wip: known gaps) and stating the scope of 20+ languages. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the language count and then defines the maturity values. However, the phrasing 'languages ablaut conjugates' is grammatically unclear, slightly hurting the structure.

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 list endpoint with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers the essential return contents (languages, codes, maturity) and the meaning of statuses. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it 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?

There are no parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed; the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description appropriately focuses on the data the tool returns rather than input semantics.

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 title and description clearly identify this as a listing tool for the 20+ languages Ablaut supports, including codes and maturity status. This distinguishes it from the sibling conjugation tools, though the description's grammar ('languages ablaut conjugates') is awkward and it never explicitly says 'returns a list'.

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 provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus conjugate or find_infinitive. Usage must be inferred from the title and sibling names, so an agent gets no explicit routing or exclusions.

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