Language List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, default page size, or filter semantics. Saying 'all languages' actively obscures the fact that the schema paginates at page_limit=50 by default.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts to convey, though the content itself is thin.

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 explained, but for a list endpoint exposing filters and pagination the description omits how to constrain or page results. An agent cannot determine correct invocation behavior from this text alone.

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% across three parameters (filters, page_limit, page_offset), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Worse, 'all' implies no filtering or paging, contradicting the schema's filter and pagination parameters.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('List all languages'), which distinguishes it from sibling single-item tools like language_get or mutating siblings like language_add/language_delete. However, it offers no explicit sibling differentiation and the word 'all' is inaccurate given pagination.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus language_get, or when to reach for other language-related siblings. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are stated.

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