list_algorithms

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reads no files, takes no arguments, and returns the whole table. It also discloses the important semantics that an algorithm absent from the table is reported as 'unknown' by a scan, which is not the same as absent from the code.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return value, usage context, and a caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with a rich description and an output schema present, everything an agent needs is covered: what it returns, when to use it, when to use the alternative, and the key unknown-classification caveat.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that the tool takes no arguments and reads no files, which adds a small amount of clarity beyond the empty schema.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List every algorithm family this server can recognise, and how each is classified.' It clearly identifies the resource (algorithm families) and the action (listing with classification), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_repo by noting it never looks at a codebase.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: check coverage before trusting a scan and explain classifications without scanning. It also names the alternative, scan_repo, and states the condition for choosing it instead ('to find what a particular directory uses'), with a clear exclusion: 'this tool never looks at a codebase.'

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