get_algorithm_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 查看 marks it as a read-only listing, 无参数 confirms it has no inputs, and the return field set (algo_id、名称、是否启用、params) is disclosed up front. It omits whether the list is global vs. user-scoped and any auth/rate-limit context, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing examples and the return contract — a sensible order. The three-line utterance list is somewhat padded and could be trimmed, but each block does contribute to disambiguating intent.

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 list tool with an output schema, purpose plus return-field summary is essentially complete. The minor gap is that it doesn't say how the returned algorithm IDs/params are meant to be consumed downstream (e.g. fed into run_smart_follow_analysis), leaving the workflow linkage implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4, and the description explicitly confirms this with 无参数 so an agent never hunts for inputs. The mentioned return fields add nothing for parameters but are harmless.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (查看智能跟卖算法清单) with an explicit scope (ALG-01~12) and even names the fields inspected (启用状态与参数). The resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings such as get_monitor_list or get_price_summary, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 three sample user utterances ("现在启用了哪些跟卖算法", "ALG-08 的参数是多少", "系统用哪些规则给我出建议") give concrete triggers for when to call it. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one (e.g. versus get_smart_follow_stats), so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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