Polylang Sprachen auflisten

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Listet auf' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe the return format. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not detailed.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, ideally concise for a simple list operation.

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 the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states the tool's purpose clearly, but does not specify the exact structure of the returned language list (e.g., codes, names, locales), which would be helpful for an agent to set expectations.

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, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description's focus on the action and resource is consistent with the empty input schema, and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 a specific verb 'Listet auf' (lists) and a specific resource 'alle konfigurierten Polylang-Sprachen' (all configured Polylang languages), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wpml_list_languages or polylang_get_post_language. The purpose is unambiguous and directly related to the tool name.

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 such as wpml_list_languages or polylang_get_post_language. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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