get_supported_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context — the return mapping (language code -> display name) and the orchestration role — but does not disclose the exact response structure, error behavior, or explicitly confirm a read-only/no-side-effect profile. Adequate but with a real gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 compact sentences: the first names the function and return content, the second gives usage sequencing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Complete for a simple list tool with one optional parameter: it states what is returned and when to call it. Since there is no output schema, the return-value hint ('语言码 -> 显示名') partially compensates, though the exact response shape remains unspecified. A minor but non-critical gap.

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%, with display_locale fully documented in the schema (default zh, allowed values listed). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('获取支持的语言列表') and specifies the return content (language code -> display name). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like get_model_list, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 explicitly instructs calling this tool before translate_document so the user can choose source and target languages. It gives clear sequencing context and purpose, but doesn't mention whether it also applies to video translation workflows (translate_video) or name any exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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