Digche Icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are ranked and that context influences match quality, which is useful. But it does not mention output format, failure behavior when no replacement is found, or limitations on supported libraries, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or filler information. Every sentence earns its place, with the first defining the action and the second providing a concise usage tip.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably clear at a high level but incomplete. It explains the core function and suggests a context input, but does not describe the return value, how ranking works in detail, or how limit and preferredStyle affect outcomes, which would be necessary for a fully self-contained definition.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for sourceLibrary (by listing example libraries) and context (by explaining what functional UI context is). However, it gives no guidance on limit or preferredStyle, even though those parameters are undocumented in the schema and could affect results.

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 a specific verb+resource combination: "Find and rank Digche replacements for an icon" and enumerates supported libraries (Lucide, Heroicons, Material Symbols, Font Awesome). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings search_icons and get_icon_svg, which focus on searching and retrieving directly, not replacement matching.

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 its use case by framing itself as a replacement finder, and it gives a practical tip ("Include the UI context for a more useful match"). However, it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer preference from the name and context.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validated' but doesn't explain what validation entails, what happens when an invalid slug is passed, or how allowFallback influences behavior. No side effects, permissions, or error handling are disclosed.

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 sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second offering practical style guidance. It is front-loaded, avoids redundancy, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core action but omits behavior around fallback, validation errors, return format, and relationship to sibling tools. Given the available schema detail, a more complete description of edge cases and expected outcomes is needed.

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%, and the description only indirectly references the 'slug' and the 'Linear' style. It does not explain the slug pattern, the meaning of each style option, or the allowFallback parameter. The schema itself provides some structure (enum, default), but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.

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 action: 'Retrieve a validated SVG variant after selecting a Digche slug.' It specifies a resource (SVG variant) and a prerequisite (slug), making the tool's role distinct from search or replacement siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls 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?

The description gives a style recommendation ('Prefer Linear for functional product UI unless the project uses another Digche style'), which is useful for choosing the style parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives (search_icons, find_replacement), only implying it should be used once a slug is known.

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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds that only 'published' icons are searchable, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether search is fuzzily matched, case-insensitive, or what the return payload contains.

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, no filler, with the action and scope front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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?

A simple search tool with no output schema; the description provides a clear purpose and usage context. It stops short of describing return format or integration with siblings, but given the moderate complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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 only 25% (only query has a description). The description expands query semantics by listing valid query types (name, alias, use case, tag, category, functional meaning), partially compensating. Other parameters (limit, style, category) rely on their schema definitions, which are self-contained.

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 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'published Digche icons' with search dimensions (name, alias, use case, tag, category, or functional meaning). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_icon_svg (retrieval) and find_replacement (replacement).

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 sentence 'Use this before choosing a UI icon' gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use, but the workflow position is evident.

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