List Tatoeba Languages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact number of languages (429), the data format (ISO codes and sentence counts), and licensing (CC-BY 2.0 FR). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two succinct sentences that front-load the core purpose and include key details (count, data fields, license). No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but present), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose, scope, and data source. Missing mention of the 'refresh' parameter is minor since the schema covers it. The tool is simple, so completeness is adequate.

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 100% (the 'refresh' parameter has a description in the schema). The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already explains it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional semantics over the schema.

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 it lists all 429 supported languages with ISO 639-3 codes and sentence counts, specifying the exact scope and output. This differentiates it from sibling tools like language.tatoeba.search and language.tatoeba.sentence, which focus on searching sentences or retrieving specific sentences.

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 implies usage for retrieving the list of languages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like language.tatoeba.search. There is no guidance on when not to use it or on prerequisites such as handling caching via the 'refresh' parameter.

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