Polylang Post-Sprache abrufen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool is a read operation ('ruft ab') and specifies the scope (language and translations), but it does not mention error handling, plugin dependencies, or return format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately states the resource and expected output, making every word necessary.

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 low-complexity tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description states the input purpose and expected output (language and translations) but lacks details on the return structure, such as how translations are represented. It is sufficient for a simple getter but not exhaustive.

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 already provides full coverage with the parameter 'postId' described as 'Post-ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that the tool operates on a post. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Ruft ab' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource: the language of a post and its translations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polylang_set_post_language (write operation) and polylang_list_languages (list all languages).

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 implies usage when needing a post's language and translations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wpml_get_post_translations or mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is assumed rather than articulated.

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