WPML Sprachen auflisten

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and clarifies scope ('configured' languages), but it does not disclose return format, behavior when WPML is inactive, or whether it includes inactive languages. This is acceptable for a simple list operation but not richly transparent.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (zero params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify what the output structure looks like (e.g., array of language codes/names), which an agent might need to know for downstream processing. Still, it's adequate for basic invocation.

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, and the schema has no properties, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, which is already complete.

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: listing all configured WPML languages. It uses a specific verb ('Listet auf') and resource ('alle konfigurierten WPML-Sprachen'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like polylang_list_languages or wpml_get_post_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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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