Language Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: 'Get' weakly implies a safe read, but there is no statement about permissions, caching, error behavior when the langcode is absent, or what the returned payload contains. Nothing contradicts the operation, but no behavioral trait beyond the name is revealed.

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 or repetition, which is the right shape for a simple lookup tool. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity is a symptom of the missing detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves the 'include' parameter unexplained and gives no usage context. It is under-specified relative to the tool's parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers only langcode implicitly through 'by langcode' and says nothing about the optional 'include' parameter or the expected langcode format, leaving a real parameter undocumented in both places.

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 (Get), resource (a single language), and the selector (by langcode), which is enough to distinguish it from language_list, language_add, and language_delete. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the single-vs-collection distinction is self-evident.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as language_list for enumerating languages. The 'by langcode' phrasing implies a lookup use case, but the agent is left to infer that this tool requires a known identifier rather than a search.

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