eda_sys_i18n_get_all_supported_languages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the return type (Array<string>); it does not state that the call is side-effect-free, whether it requires an active window or workspace, whether language codes or display names are returned, or any error behavior. For an unannotated tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact: a signature line, a one-line purpose statement, and a return note. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the return line is mildly redundant with the purpose line and mixes API signature with natural-language Chinese without a clean separation.

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 no-argument getter with schema-covered parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource, the scope, and the return shape. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral specifics, but given the tool's low complexity it does not leave an agent entirely in the dark.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (args and windowId) adequately. The description adds nothing about the parameters beyond the signature showing no arguments are expected, 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 states a clear purpose — querying all supported languages — and includes the JS signature with the return type Array<string>. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like eda_sys_i18n_get_current_language and eda_sys_i18n_is_language_supported by the name alone, though the description itself does not explicitly contrast them.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sys_i18n_get_current_language or eda_sys_i18n_is_language_supported. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the implicit fact that it is a no-argument getter that any agent would likely infer from the name.

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