auto_detect_algorithms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only says 'Automatically detect algorithms in project files'. It does not state whether detection is read-only, whether results are returned or stored, or whether it integrates with register_algorithm. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 with no filler words. It states the core action and target resource efficiently, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple in terms of parameters, but the definition omits what happens after detection—whether algorithms are registered, listed, or returned. Without an output schema or annotations, and with sibling tools like register_algorithm and auto_benchmark present, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (directories, default src, examples) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 uses the specific verb 'detect' with object 'algorithms in project files', which clearly suggests discovering algorithms rather than registering or listing them. It is distinguishable from siblings like register_algorithm and list_algorithms, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auto_benchmark or register_algorithm. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the tool's name and one-line description, leaving usage largely to inference.

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