list_system_languages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the HTTP endpoint (GET /api/system/languages) and briefly explains the 'history' parameter's purpose, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it lacks details about response format, pagination, or ordering, though the presence of an output schema mitigates this.

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 succinct, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes the endpoint and an args section, which is a clear structure. No filler or redundant information; every line earns its place.

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, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and parameter meaning. The output schema exists, so return values are not required. Annotations handle safety. The only minor gap is insufficient guidance on distinguishing from related tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the 'history' parameter: 'Language name for history stats.' This gives semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, which only defines it as a nullable string. The explanation is concise but adequate for a single optional parameter.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('languages'), and explains the intended use cases ('for history filter or for language filter menu'). This makes the tool's purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool list_system_languages_profiles, which might be confused with this one.

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 a specific context for when to use this tool (history filter or language filter menu), which implies its usage. However, it does not mention any alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. Given the sibling list contains similar 'list_system_languages_profiles', some exclusionary guidance would improve clarity.

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