List Languages

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing it discloses the relevant traits: it takes no inputs and returns executable language identifiers. It omits minor details such as whether authentication or rate limits apply, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then the no-input note. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, yet the description still clarifies the practical value of the returned identifiers for run_code. For a trivial zero-param lookup tool this is fully adequate.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'Takes no inputs,' matching the empty schema with additionalProperties false.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the list of programming languages HackerEarth can execute') and adds the key qualifier that the results contain 'the exact identifiers to pass to run_code', which cleanly separates it from its only sibling, run_code.

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 names both trigger conditions: 'when you are unsure which language name to use' and 'when the user asks what languages are available.' This is a direct routing rule to the discovery tool rather than a guess.

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