treesitter_get_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. It clearly explains two possible behaviors: returning a list of languages, or writing to a file if output_file is set, including the exact return structure in both cases. It also notes the rationale for output_file ('prevent context overload'), which adds useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Despite being longer than a single-sentence description, every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (purpose and return) is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and both possible return shapes. No important information 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates. It explains the output_file parameter's meaning (writes to file instead of returning), its use case (large outputs), and the resulting return value. This adds far more context than the bare schema (a string/null parameter with no description).

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 opens with a clear, specific verb: 'Get a list of programming languages supported by the analyzer.' It names the resource (supported languages) and uniquely distinguishes this tool from siblings that focus on AST traversal, queries, and analysis.

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?

Usage guidance is only implied. The tool's purpose is obvious from the description, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or mentions any context or prerequisites. The output_file parameter description gives a minor usage hint for large outputs, but no overall usage guidelines.

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