recommend_algorithm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses both content type and a key limitation: it returns algorithm steps, API references, limits, and pitfalls, but no community source code or copied data tables. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or response format, though the output schema likely handles return structure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by practical usage context. There is no repetition or wasted phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage context, and content limitations, but it leaves sibling differentiation and the 'topic' parameter semantics under-specified for a tool with a required parameter and no annotations.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'topic' parameter. The description supplies example domains that likely map to valid topics, but it never explicitly defines the parameter or states accepted values, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource set: return original algorithm steps, official API references, limits, and pitfalls for complex mechanics. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling recommend_mechanic_apis, which appears closely related.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: use before implementing aimbot/aim assist target selection, visibility sampling, KA/area damage, prefab placement, or world text. It does not name alternative tools or state when this tool should not be used instead of siblings.

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