list_available_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or pagination. The description adds basic context about scope but lacks operational details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies the scope. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the response format (e.g., list of language codes) to be fully 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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents the empty input object.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all available languages') and the resource ('POEditor'), with explicit scope differentiation ('not project-specific, but all possible language codes'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_languages' tool by specifying this lists all possible languages rather than project-specific ones.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'not project-specific' indicates this should be used for general language reference, while the sibling 'list_languages' (implied by context) would be for project-specific languages. This creates clear differentiation between tools.

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