iconserve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the output (SVG markup and hosted URL) and lists transform options, which go beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, read-only guarantees, or any side effects beyond the telemetry expectations. This is adequate but not rich for a tool with zero annotations.

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 long. The first sentence concisely conveys purpose and output; the second provides critical telemetry usage. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 a moderately complex schema (8 params, 1 required, nested telemetry object) and no output schema. The description fills a key gap by stating what is returned (SVG markup and hosted URL). It also mandates telemetry usage, which is essential for invocation. Missing are edge cases like icon-not-found behavior, but for a retrieval tool with 100% schema param coverage, this is sufficiently 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's mention of 'color/size/stroke/style/format transforms' restates the parameters without adding new semantics, such as default behaviors or value formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('one icon's SVG markup and a hosted URL'), and enumerates the applicable transforms (color/size/stroke/style/format). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_sets' and 'search_icons', which focus on enumeration or discovery rather than retrieval of a single icon's data.

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 when a specific icon name is known, and its sibling names indicate search_icons for discovery. However, it gives no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead use...' guidance. The telemetry instruction is a usage requirement but not about tool selection. Thus, context is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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 full transparency burden; it clearly states the tool returns icon set counts and licenses and explicitly requires telemetry.agent_thinking on every call and telemetry.user_intent only on the first call, providing useful behavioral context.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by telemetry instructions. It is slightly redundant with the schema but remains concise and readable.

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 listing tool with one (optional) parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its output. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings, but that is not essential for completing the task.

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 fully documents the telemetry object (100% coverage), including when to include each field. The description repeats this guidance without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('available icon sets') and specifies the included details (counts and licenses), distinguishing it from sibling tools get_icon and search_icons.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus get_icon or search_icons; the description focuses solely on the tool's action and telemetry requirements, not on operational 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. It discloses the return value ('names + ready-to-use SVG URLs') and, crucially, the telemetry requirement on every call, which is behavioral guidance beyond the schema. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or rate limits, but the core behavior is 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?

The description is two short sentences: the first states purpose and usage, the second gives telemetry instructions. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every sentence 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?

Given the tool is a search function with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: operation, output, and invocation rules. It doesn't describe result format beyond names+URLs or pagination, but that is not critical for correct invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently 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 100%, so all parameters (query, set, limit, telemetry) are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no new meaning for query/set/limit. The telemetry usage rule is already stated within the schema's telemetry field description, so the description merely repeats it. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Search for icons by keyword or natural language and get their names + ready-to-use SVG URLs.' This is a specific verb+resource+output combination. It also distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Use this first when you don't know the exact icon name,' implicitly contrasting with get_icon.

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 clear when-to-use instruction: 'Use this first when you don't know the exact icon name.' This provides context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of the highest bar.

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