InfySVG — Free SVG Clipart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the slug-format context but says nothing about what 'full details' includes or the failure mode for an unknown slug; with no output schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, with the example appended rather than buried. Nothing is wasted, though there is little beyond the essential.

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 single-parameter read with full annotation coverage this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema the description never characterizes the returned 'full details', leaving the agent to guess at the response shape.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented as coming from a page URL or search result. The description's example slug adds a concrete format illustration, which is modest value on top of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve full details for a single design, keyed by page slug. It is clearly distinct from get_licence and list_categories, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_designs.

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 mention of 'by its page slug' implies this is the follow-up call once you have a slug from a search or URL, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one behavioral detail beyond them: the result is delivered 'in one paragraph', giving a hint about output shape. It says nothing about caching, freshness, or whether terms vary per design beyond the blanket statement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope qualifier ('every design') is placed immediately, and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 trivial zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (a single paragraph of licence terms covering all designs), which is the essential missing piece. Only minor detail is absent, such as whether terms are uniform or per-design.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists, and the empty schema is fully self-explanatory.

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 resource (licence terms) and its scope (every design on InfySVG), which is clearly distinct from get_design, list_categories, and search_designs. It's clear but doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied – an agent can infer you call this when you need licensing information, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to alternatives. For a zero-parameter singleton tool this is tolerable but still thin.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds relevant value by disclosing the returned content (design counts, page URLs), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or size, which for a full listing is a notable omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key noun (categories) and the payoff (counts, URLs) come first. It reads as a label fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully signals what comes back (categories, seasonal collections, counts, page URLs), and the annotations cover the behavioral profile. The only gap is enumeration mechanics such as pagination or ordering, which is minor for a simple list 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 verb (List) and resource (categories), and even previews the payload: categories plus seasonal collections with design counts and page URLs. Clear enough to distinguish intent, though the sibling tools (get_design, get_licence, search_designs) don't overlap so no differentiation is required.

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 only implied: the tool enumerates all categories, which an agent can infer is the right choice when it needs a full category listing. No explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives is given, but sibling tools occupy different domains so there is little ambiguity.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it returns page URLs and each result page carries downloads and recolouring without an account, which tells the agent the drill-down path is unauthenticated.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but the third sentence ('free SVG, PNG, DXF and PDF downloads plus recolouring, no account needed') is catalog marketing that does not help an agent invoke or select the tool, so it only partly 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, what comes back (designs with page URLs), and the auth-free drill-down. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or behaviour when nothing matches.

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 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented with an example and bounds. The description adds only the notion of keyword matching, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Search the InfySVG catalog of free SVG cut files by keyword') and adds what it returns. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with siblings get_design/list_categories, but the keyword-search scope is distinct enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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 by 'by keyword' — the agent can infer it is the entry point for discovery — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_design for a specific known design or list_categories for browsing.

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