scheduling_get_optimization_algorithms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation ('List available'), which is a key behavioral trait. The examples ('circular timetable, shift sequence') add context about the type of content returned. It does not mention side effects or edge cases, but for a simple enumeration tool these are not necessary.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource, with optional examples. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or verbose 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 that the tool is a simple parameterless list operation and there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource and gives examples of what is listed. It does not specify return format, but 'List' implies an array of algorithm names, which is sufficient for this complexity. A slightly more explicit note about the output being a list of identifiers could bump it to 5, but it is already adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The examples in the description are not parameter-related but they do enrich the domain context.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'available scheduling optimization algorithms', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scheduling_run_optimization (which executes) and scheduling_get_optimization_status (which checks status). The examples 'circular timetable, shift sequence' further clarify the resource domain.

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 a use case: to discover available algorithms before running an optimization (via scheduling_run_optimization). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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