list_languages

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'detected and indexed' implying a read operation, but no details about side effects, permissions, or performance. The description is minimal and does not reveal additional behavioral traits.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is informative and nothing is extraneous.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and key detail (support status). It could be more complete by mentioning any context dependencies (e.g., repository must be indexed), but it is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by stating that the result includes 'support status', which is not evident from the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', resource 'programming languages', and scope 'in the repository'. It also mentions 'support status', adding specificity. It distinguishes it from sibling tools that list files or symbols.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling tools, but the description does not provide context for when this tool is appropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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