Dict Languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get the dictionary' implies a static read-only reference list, which is the expected behavior, but it says nothing about whether names are localized, whether the list is stable/cached, or whether results are paginated. For a zero-parameter lookup this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial lookup, though it could have added one clause about the returned fields at little cost.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it only vaguely indicates id-bearing language entries. For a simple enum-style lookup that is close to sufficient, but an agent still must guess the field names and whether localized names are included.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The phrase 'with their ids' usefully signals that results are id/name pairs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the dictionary of foreign languages') and states the payload contains ids, which distinguishes it from sibling lookups like dict_locales or dict_areas. It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the other dict_* siblings.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is a reference-data lookup for language ids, presumably to populate other calls. There is no statement of when to prefer it over dict_locales or the suggested_* tools, and no note on caching or frequency.

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