list_available_languages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully reveals that 'all' scope is backed by MyMemory's free API and may return languages with no local locale folder (a meaningful side effect for downstream planning), but it omits whether 'all' requires a network call, what happens on API failure, or the result ordering/shape.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope distinction immediately after. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the return content, both modes, the default, and the data source. Only the network/error behavior of 'all' scope and result ordering are left unstated.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by clarifying the practical consequence the schema doesn't capture — that 'all' includes languages with no locale file in the project, which changes how an agent should interpret results. The default of 'project' is also reinforced in prose.

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 ('List language codes and names') and immediately splits the behavior into two named scopes, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like translate_text or sync_translations, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains what each scope value does, which implicitly tells an agent which scope to pick for a given intent (check existing locale files vs. discover all translatable languages). However, it never states when to call this tool versus the siblings (translate_text, sync_translations, preview_changes) that presumably consume its output.

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