iconserve

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output (SVG markup and hosted URL) and mentions optional transforms, which is helpful. However, it does not cover failure modes, behavior when an icon is not found, or any implied permissions. The read-only nature is inferred from 'Get' but not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence immediately stating the core function before listing optional transforms. Every word earns its place; no filler 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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return value (SVG markup and hosted URL). It also notes optional transforms. It lacks detail on 'set' best-match behavior, but that is covered in the schema. Overall sufficient for the complexity.

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%, with each parameter described. The description lists transforms (color/size/stroke/style/format) but this merely echoes schema parameter descriptions without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

Description states 'Get one icon's SVG markup and a hosted URL' – a specific verb and resource. Sibling tools (list_sets, search_icons) are clearly distinct: list, search, and get. This differentiates the tool effectively.

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 phrase 'one icon' implies use for single-icon retrieval, but the description provides no explicit comparison to list_sets or search_icons. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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 burden of disclosure. It transparently mentions that the output includes counts and licenses, giving insight into the return content. It does not mention side effects, but for a non-destructive listing operation, this is sufficient. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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, succinct sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it states the action and the key details of the result (counts and licenses). While it does not specify output format or pagination, these are not critical for a basic listing tool, and the description covers the essential context.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters.

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 ('List') and the resource ('available icon sets'), and specifies what information is provided ('counts and licenses'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_icon and search_icons, which focus on individual icons or searching.

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 the tool is for obtaining an overview of icon sets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_icons or get_icon. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 must carry the burden. It discloses the output (names + SVG URLs) and implies a non-destructive search, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or result ordering. It's adequate for a simple search tool but lacks richer 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word 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 search tool with 3 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage guidance, and output type. It could mention pagination or the relationship to list_sets, but the core use case is well addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds slight extra context by indicating that queries can be natural language, but does not materially improve on the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'set' and 'limit' are already well documented).

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 function: search for icons by keyword or natural language, returning names and SVG URLs. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying to use this first when you don't know the exact icon name, implying get_icon is for exact matches.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use instruction ('Use this first when you don't know the exact icon name'), which implies an alternative for known names. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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