list_algorithms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the classification categories and the server-scoped nature, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, non-mutating, or safe to call, which is a minor gap for a tool without annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and includes all necessary details without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is complete: it says what is listed and how it is classified. The presence of an output schema means the return format is already documented, so no additional return-value explanation is needed.

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 empty schema already covers everything. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the 100% schema coverage confirms no parameter semantics are missing.

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 ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('algorithm families this server recognises') plus the classification detail. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'scan_repo' by focusing on a read-only inventory rather than scanning.

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 the tool is for when you need to know recognized algorithm families and their classifications. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but given the sibling tool is unrelated, the context is reasonably clear.

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