list_supported_languages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The description explains that the tool returns a list of supported language codes and names, which covers the basic behavioral outcome, but it does not disclose details such as whether the list is exhaustive, whether it is ordered, or whether it includes any additional metadata. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list tool but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The returns statement adds necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with a straightforward output, the description is sufficient. It states the action, the resource, and the return content. The presence of an output schema covers further structural details, leaving no missing information an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description does not need to explain parameter usage. The baseline of 4 applies, and the schema coverage is 100%, leaving no ambiguity.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all supported target languages for translation'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_supported_models by specifying target languages, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 stated clearly enough to infer when it should be used, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives. Since sibling tools include similar list-related operations, some explicit usage guidance would be helpful, though the description implies its use for enumerating translation target languages.

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