headless_list_algorithms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about output size, pagination, whether the catalog is cached, or what happens with a limit of 100 by default.

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 English sentence is short and front-loaded, but the appended Georgian translation 'ალგორითმების სია' is pure duplication that adds no information for an agent selecting the tool.

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 catalog-listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should at minimum explain pagination/limit behavior and the shape of results; it does neither.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'filter' as a text filter but says nothing about 'limit', its default of 100, or how the two interact, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Processing algorithms via qgis_process'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling headless_algorithm that runs a single algorithm. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Only 'optionally filtered by text' hints at usage; there is no guidance on when to choose this over headless_algorithm, headless_command, or qgis_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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