list_languages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description explains what the response contains: languages and their IDs. It does not mention edge cases like custom languages or return format details, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key use context without any filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and why the IDs matter. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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?

The input schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to document, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the languages Sonarr knows.' It also explains the practical purpose of the output ('ids used in language profiles and episode file edits'), which distinguishes it clearly from the many sibling list tools.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: when the agent needs language IDs for language profiles or episode file edits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple enumeration tool the intended use is sufficiently clear.

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