list_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the return information takes, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief but could be more efficiently structured. The 'Returns:' section is redundant with the main statement and adds little value. While it's only two lines, the second line essentially restates what's implied by the first. Every sentence should earn its place, and the returns statement doesn't add meaningful information beyond 'list available languages' already implies.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. For a tool that returns 'information about available languages,' the description should provide more context about what format this information takes, what fields are included, or at least hint at the structure. The agent has no way to understand what will be returned beyond a vague promise of 'information.'

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 - the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than non-existent 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List available languages.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that tells what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_language_available' or 'list_files' - it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar-sounding siblings like 'check_language_available' or 'list_files'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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