get_supported_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a list, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or caches results. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one detailing the return value. It's front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the structure could be slightly improved by combining ideas more fluidly, but it's efficient overall.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context on usage, behavior, or integration with siblings, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for no parameters. It appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 tool's purpose: 'サポートされている言語の一覧を取得します' (Get a list of supported languages) and specifies what it returns: '翻訳可能な言語コードと言語名のリストを返します' (Returns a list of translatable language codes and language names). It distinguishes from sibling tools (transcribe_from_file, transcribe_from_url) by focusing on language metadata rather than transcription. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the different domain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or relationships with sibling tools. The only implied usage is when language information is needed, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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