get-algorithm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the algorithm is not found, or any error/response details. The word 'Get' implies a read, but that is not explicit and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it appropriately concise for such a straightforward tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally viable but lacks context such as return format, error behavior, or usage nuance. It does not go beyond the bare statement of function, so it is complete enough for a trivial getter but not richly informative.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'name' parameter described as 'Algorithm name.' The description's phrase 'by name' simply restates the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description adds no extra semantic value, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get a specific algorithm by name' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('specific algorithm'), and the qualifier 'by name' clarifies the lookup mechanism. It is distinguishable from the plural sibling 'get-algorithms' by implication, but it does not explicitly name the alternative for listing all algorithms.

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 usage when you have a specific algorithm name, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-algorithms'. It lacks any when-not or alternative tool mentions, so usage context is only minimally implied.

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