get_language

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (language and pinning state), which goes beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction, and the description is consistent with the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence in Chinese and its English translation. It front-loads the action and the returned data, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does and what it returns. There is no missing information that would impede correct invocation or interpretation of the result.

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 zero parameters, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not add parameter information since there are none. No further explanation is needed.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: returning the bridge's current language and whether it is pinned or follows the 3ds Max UI language. It names the specific resource (bridge) and the two pieces of information, making the purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling set_language.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of the sibling set_language and the verb 'return' imply this is for reading, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided. The usage is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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