grafo_get_algorithm_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that help is returned 'when available', hinting at conditional behavior, but fails to detail what happens if unavailable (e.g., error handling), permissions required, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the parameter or usage context. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description's main gap is in behavioral transparency and parameter guidance. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it partially compensates by stating the format ('markdown') and conditionality ('when available'), but falls short of being fully complete for effective agent use.

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?

The description does not mention the parameter 'enum_name', and schema description coverage is 0%, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description's lack of parameter context reduces it to 3, as it doesn't clarify what 'enum_name' refers to or provide examples.

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 the tool 'returns help in markdown for an enum of algorithms from grafo-back, when available', which specifies the verb ('returns help'), resource ('enum of algorithms'), and format ('markdown'). However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grafo_describe_algorithm' or 'grafo_list_algorithm_enums', leaving the exact scope ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'when available', which implies conditional availability but doesn't specify prerequisites, contexts, or comparisons to siblings like 'grafo_describe_algorithm'. This lack of direction leaves usage unclear.

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