explain_algorithm

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'explain the mechanics', without indicating whether the output includes time/space complexity, code examples, or constraints. The behavior is under-specified.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is concise, but could benefit from a brief suffix clarifying the output scope without adding significant length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, given the absence of annotations and the large sibling set, the description lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., valid algorithm name) and fails to set expectations for the output format or level of detail.

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 schema describes both parameters ('problem' and 'algorithm') with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool explains the mechanics of an algorithm or data structure. The verb 'explain' and noun 'mechanics' specify the tool's action and subject. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_algorithms' or 'dry_run', but could be more precise about what 'mechanics' includes (e.g., step-by-step, complexity).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dry_run', 'generate_pseudocode', or 'analyze_complexity'. With 22 sibling tools, explicit usage context is crucial but missing.

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