list_algorithms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden but says nothing about pagination limits (the schema's `limit` defaults to 50, implying truncation risk), result ordering, or the shape of returned algorithm entries. Nothing indicates whether the tool is a pure read (safe to call freely) or has side effects, which matters for an agent deciding whether to probe it.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, at this length against a three-parameter tool it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 zero schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the provider filter, the limit default's truncation effect, and roughly what a returned algorithm record contains. It covers only the search key, leaving an agent under-informed on how to call the tool correctly at scale.

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 compensate, yet it only addresses `search` (substring matching against id/name). `provider` and `limit` are never explained in prose, leaving two of three parameters relying on bare titles and defaults.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Processing algorithms') plus the matching key (id/name substring), which is enough to distinguish it from run_algorithm, get_algorithm_params and list_plugins. It stops short of 5 because it describes only the substring-search mode and never says that omitting `search` enumerates all algorithms, so the relationship between the tool's name (list_algorithms) and its stated behavior is left slightly 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_algorithm_params (to inspect a chosen algorithm) or run_algorithm (to execute one), and no statement of preconditions or when-not-to-use. The agent must infer the discovery-then-inspect workflow from tool names alone.

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