list_supported_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the return format (list of dicts with three fields) and that it has no side effects. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only listing tool that is acceptable.

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?

Extremely concise: three short paragraphs. Front-loads the action and result, then usage advice, then return schema. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and the availability of an output schema (presumably documenting the return fields), the description is complete. It describes the output structure clearly, compensating for any potential gaps in the output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for 0 params is 4. No need for further detail.

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 it lists every programming language and Docker image for the sandbox. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (run_code, get_execution_history) by focusing on discovery of supported languages.

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 says 'Call this first if you're unsure what values are valid for the `language` parameter of `run_code`.' This provides clear context for when to use it. It also notes 'Takes no arguments,' which is helpful. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, but sufficient.

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