List Supported Languages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination, caching, or scope caveats — but for a zero-argument read of an installation-level constant there is little behavior left to disclose.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing 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 parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and invoke. Only a brief note on the shape of the returned list (e.g., language codes vs. display names) would improve it.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema-coverage baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and nothing is missing.

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 and resource ('List all languages supported by the MantisBT installation'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but no sibling plausibly overlaps with this enumeration, so the omission is low-cost.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives are named. However, the purpose is self-selecting: a zero-parameter, read-only enumeration has no plausible competing tool, so usage is implied rather than ambiguous.

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