Get Algorithm Help

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (non-destructive help retrieval). It specifies the content of the help (parameters, outputs, description), adding context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like invalid algorithm_id handling or rate limits.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and expected output. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and what information it provides. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that the algorithm_id can be obtained from 'list_processing_algorithms'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only reiterates that the tool returns parameter details. It does not explain the format or source of the algorithm_id parameter, leaving the agent with minimal guidance beyond the schema's name and type.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed help for a processing algorithm, listing specific subfields (parameters, outputs, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_processing_algorithms' or 'get_processing_providers'.

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 for when a user needs details about a specific algorithm, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing algorithms or executing them). No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the algorithm_id).

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