fc_set_language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates that the tool changes the output language, implying it affects subsequent tool outputs. However, it does not disclose if this setting persists across sessions, is session-specific, or if it overrides user preferences. The description is sufficient but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be structured better with a brief note on usage context, but for a simple tool, this is adequate.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, scope, or persistence of the language setting. For a configuration tool, this information would be helpful to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'language', listing values 'de' and 'en' with a basic description 'Language code'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sets the output language for FileCommander tools. It specifies the verb 'set' and the resource 'output language', with a clear scope ('FileCommander tools'). This straightforward purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like fc_set_safe_mode or other configuration 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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no context about prerequisites (e.g., a session must exist) or when to avoid using it. The lack of usage scenarios or conditions limits its helpfulness.

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