list_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists languages with counts, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, filtering, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful, and no waste is present.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (defining the return structure), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does. However, it could be improved by mentioning if the list is sorted or if there are any limitations, but overall it is adequate for a simple list tool.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (no params). The description adds the nuance of 'with counts', which is not evident from the empty schema. According to guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description provides additional context, so this score is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool lists programming languages of MCP servers with counts. The verb 'list' and resource 'programming languages' are clear, and the 'with counts' adds specificity. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_categories or list_tags, which focus on different types of resources.

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_categories or list_tags. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. Given the presence of multiple sibling list tools, the lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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