List Processing Algorithms

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, adding that it returns id, name, and provider. It discloses the read-only behavior and output structure, though no additional traits like rate limits or pagination are mentioned. The annotation already covers read-only, so the description adds value.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects, presence of output schema), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and output. No additional details are necessary.

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 0%, but the description compensates by naming two parameters (keyword and provider) and explaining their use for filtering. It does not specify allowed values or formats, but the schema has no enums or constraints. The description provides sufficient meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'processing algorithms', specifying filtering by keyword and/or provider. It also mentions what is returned (id, name, provider). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_algorithm_help' which provides details for a single algorithm.

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 explicitly states the tool is for searching by keyword and/or provider, implying its primary use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of siblings like 'get_algorithm_help' provides differentiation. Slight lack of exclusion guidance.

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