list_locales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: locales are 'enabled', returned 'in order', one is the default, and each content item has one variant per locale. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits details like auth needs or exact return shape.

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 tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage note immediately after. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, default-locale behavior, and the downstream use of the returned codes. The schema fully covers the only parameter, so nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single `site` parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'List the enabled locales (language branches)' — and adds scope details (enabled, ordered, default locale). It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, none of which deal with locale enumeration.

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?

It tells the agent what to do with the result: 'pass these codes as `locale` to other tools so text lands in the branch matching its language.' That is clear contextual guidance for a read-only helper tool. It does not state when not to use it, but no sibling alternative exists for this purpose.

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