get_languages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get list' clearly signals a read-only retrieval with no side effects. It also states the scope ('all languages available'). It stops short of describing ordering, format, or pagination, but for a zero-parameter catalog endpoint these are minor omissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part of the description adds useful information: the action, the resource, and the scope. It is appropriately sized for the tool's trivial complexity.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns (a list of all available languages) and nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly. The absence of details about return format is not a real gap because the output is self-explanatory.

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 zero parameters, so the schema gives no semantic burden. The description correctly implies the operation requires no input, matching the empty input schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and states the exact resource ('list of all languages available in Sefaria'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text, get_toc, or get_calendars, which target completely different resources.

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 clear context: an agent should call this tool when it needs the set of languages Sefaria supports. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but since there are no similarly scoped siblings, the context is sufficient and no exclusions are needed.

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