Renforge Languages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool lists languages; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or any other behavioral trait. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, efficient, and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description fails to document the required project_path parameter despite 0% schema description coverage. With no annotations either, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly, making it incomplete for a tool with a mandatory input.

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 one required parameter (project_path) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it at all. The phrase 'under game/tl/' provides no meaningful clarification of what project_path should be, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (translation languages under game/tl/), making the tool's function clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling translation-related tools like renforge_translation_stats or renforge_export_dialogue, so it misses the top mark for sibling differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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