List judge languages

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

The annotations already cover the read-only safety profile (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds useful context beyond that: the tool inspects the local host's toolchain and returns two categories of languages (actually runnable vs. merely known), which clarifies output semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The key qualifier ('actually run on this host (toolchain present)') is front-loaded, and the usage cue is given in the second sentence.

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-argument, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool reports and when to use it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema fully covers inputs; the baseline for no parameters is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('languages the local judge can actually run on this host'), and clarifies the scope as 'alongside every language it knows about.' It clearly differentiates from repovive_judge_solution and other listing tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent when to invoke it: 'Check this before repovive_judge_solution.' This gives a direct decision rule and distinguishes it from the related judging tool.

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