Infyicon

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly says the tool returns 'URLs' rather than raw image data, and notes the 'transparent background' attribute. This provides important context for an agent, though it does not mention aspects like URL ordering or whether the returned URLs require special access.

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 front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the relevant attributes in a compact parenthetical. Every phrase contributes value with no unnecessary words or background.

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 a fully documented parameter schema, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description only vaguely indicates 'URLs' without specifying the exact return structure (e.g., single URL vs. object mapping sizes to URLs), leaving minor ambiguity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: 'id' includes a concrete example and 'size' explains that it is optional and that omitting it returns all sizes. The description's parenthetical '(16-512px)' only paraphrases the already documented size enum, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('direct PNG download URLs'), and the target entity ('Infyicon icon id'). The explicit 'PNG' in the description cleanly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'get_icon_svg', so the agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent with an Infyicon icon id and a need for PNG URLs would use this tool. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring get_icon_svg for vector output.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output is ready-to-embed SVG markup, which goes beyond simply naming the operation. It does not cover error behavior, but for a simple single-parameter retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the main action, an example, a source for valid IDs, and the return format. No wasted words.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides everything needed to call the tool: the ID format, where IDs come from, and what the returned value looks like.

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 schema already documents the id parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value on top by specifying the slug_number format and explicitly pointing to search_icons as the source of valid IDs.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full SVG markup of an Infyicon icon by id.' It also explains the ID format and how to obtain IDs, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and easily distinguished from the sibling get_icon_png.

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 clearly tells the agent that IDs come from search_icons, which is a useful precondition. It does not explicitly say when to choose this SVG tool over get_icon_png, but the resource name and return type make the intended use clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool lists popular categories with counts and mentions the category page URL pattern, which is helpful, but it does not describe pagination, response format, or whether the limit influences the ordering. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list but leaves some behavior undocumented.

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 front-loads the main purpose and adds a relevant detail about category page URLs. There is no redundant information or filler.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a simple list operation: it describes what is listed (popular categories with icon counts) and provides the URL pattern. However, without an output schema it does not describe the response shape, and the behavior around the limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

There is only one parameter, limit, and its schema description fully covers its semantics with min, max, and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema description coverage.

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 lists the most popular Infyicon icon categories with icon counts, naming both the resource and the action. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which fetch icon files or search for icons, not categories.

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 that this tool is for discovering icon categories and notes the category URL structure, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is reasonable but not fully articulated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It compensates by disclosing the search scope (161,000+ icons), returned fields (id, style, page URL, SVG/PNG URLs), styles with visual definitions, and the attribution requirement. It could additionally mention auth/rate limiting but none are likely relevant for a free icon search.

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 two succinct sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, includes result structure, coverage, styles, and licensing in compact form. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

As a search tool with no output schema, the description still communicates what a result contains, the valid styles, and the license context. It only minimally implies how returned icon ids can be funneled into sibling tools (get_icon_svg/get_icon_png), which would complete the mental model.

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 for parameters is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds semantic meaning to the enum values by explaining styles as outline (black line), fill (black solid), color-outline, and color-fill. This allows an agent to pick a style based on visual preference, not just names. It also states the 'query' can be descriptive like 'shopping cart', contributing 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 clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (161,000+ Infyicon vector icons), and lists the returned fields (icon id, style, page URL, SVG and PNG URLs). It doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_icons_svg or list_categories, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 finding icons, but doesn't state when to prefer this tool over its siblings (e.g., when to use get_icon_svg or list_categories). With a clear alternative label or a short 'use this to discover icons, then retrieve via get_icon_png/get_icon_svg', it would be a 4.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys what the tool returns (a CSS class usable in an <i> element) and gives a concrete example. It does not cover search semantics like exact-match vs fuzzy, but for a simple lookup this is not a major gap.

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?

Two sentences, clearly front-loaded with the action and resource. Every element—glyph scope, usage example, and stylesheet link—contributes directly to correct invocation and no text is wasted.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, this description is complete enough to guide an agent. It explains what to search, how to use the result, and how to render the icon. The missing details are non-essential given the minimal complexity of this tool.

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 schema already describes 'name' with concrete examples ('home', 'arrow'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description reinforces the input concept but adds little meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific action ('Look up CSS class names') and a specific resource (the Infyicon UI webfont), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_icon_png or get_icon_svg. The inclusion of a concrete usage example reinforces the purpose.

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 shows how to apply the returned class ('Use the returned class like <i class=...>...') and references the stylesheet URL, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource type makes the usage context unambiguous.

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