List locales

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals that the tool reports both installed locales and the default, and explains a consequential fallback behavior tied to WIKIJS_LOCALE. This helps the agent understand why the result matters.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's essential question, followed by a succinct, high-value rationale. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one optional parameter, the description plus schema fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, when to call it, and why it is relevant to the surrounding page tools. No output schema is necessary for such a simple result.

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 already documents installed_only clearly with 100% coverage, including its default value. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose: reporting which locales are installed and which is the default. It names the specific resource and the two distinct outputs, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_pages or get_site_info.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Worth checking once per wiki' and explains why it matters before using page tools, since they fall back to WIKIJS_LOCALE. It does not mention alternatives, but no obvious alternative tool exists for this operation.

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