List Processing Algorithms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose safety. It adds that the tool returns id, name, provider, but omits details like pagination, sorting, or any limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides modest additional context.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and parameters; the second describes the output. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return fields. However, it does not mention the absence of required parameters, default behavior (returns all?), or any ordering/limits. These are minor gaps for a search tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by stating 'by keyword and/or provider', clarifying that 'search' is the keyword and 'provider' is a filter. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it does not specify accepted formats or providers.

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 'Search for processing algorithms by keyword and/or provider. Returns id, name, provider for each match.' This clearly specifies the verb (search/list), resource (processing algorithms), and what it returns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_algorithm_help' or 'list_processing_models' by the filtering mechanism and return fields.

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 using this tool to search/list processing algorithms with optional filters, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., get_algorithm_help for details, list_processing_models for models). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or direct comparisons.

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