shop_locales

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'lists' but does not explicitly state safety characteristics (e.g., no side effects) or additional behavioral context such as response format, ordering, or authorization requirements. The description is adequate for a simple read but minimal.

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, clear, and efficient sentence with no redundant words. It perfectly front-loads the purpose.

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?

The tool is very simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it returns conceptually ('all configured languages/locales') but does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., array of strings, objects with codes/names). For such a minimal tool, this is adequate but could be slightly more explicit about the response format.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all configured languages/locales of the shop'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like shop_info and available_shipping_countries by focusing specifically on languages/locales.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description is purely functional and does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool might be more appropriate.

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