renforge_languages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the path 'game/tl/' adds specificity. It does not mention error conditions or return details, but these are likely covered by the output schema, and the operation is straightforward.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage context and explicit parameter semantics, which could be important for an agent deciding between this and related translation tools.

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 has a single required parameter 'project_path' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description mentions 'game/tl/' which implies project_path is the project root, adding some meaning. However, it does not explicitly define the parameter format or expected values, so the compensation is partial.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List translation languages present under game/tl/.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('translation languages') with a precise location, distinguishing it from sibling tools like translation_stats or generate_translations.

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 purpose is self-evident, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like translation_stats. The context implies listing available languages, but there is no stated when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools.

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