list_algorithms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation returns metadata and specifies the return structure, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though listing algorithms is naturally non-destructive.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes a returns section that duplicates the output schema, but this is acceptable for clarity and does not waste words.

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 the simplicity of a no-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what algorithms are returned and the purpose. It could mention that this is a safe read-only call, but absent that, it is still complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers everything. Per rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4; the description correctly includes no parameter information because there are none.

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 'List available schedule optimization algorithms' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_statistics, as it is uniquely about algorithms.

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 implies usage context: callers can use it to choose an algorithm for their workload, likely before using optimize_schedule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear.

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