list_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but the tool is a zero-parameter read-only lookup, so the risk surface is small. It does not state that no filtering/pagination exists or what the result set looks like, which would have been cheap and useful 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing is padded or buried.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return shape (language codes vs. human-readable names) and whether the list is static or catalogue-scoped implicit. For a trivial lookup this is tolerable, but it is not complete.

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 defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. Mentioning the 'catalogue' scope is a small bonus that clarifies which universe of languages is returned.

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 ('languages') scoped to 'the catalogue', which is clear enough to distinguish it from list_catalogues, list_tables, and the other list_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Use is only implied — an agent can infer this is the lookup to call when a language code/name is needed for other queries, but the description never says when to use it, what alternative to prefer, or any prerequisite. Adequate minimum with clear gaps.

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