Logoforge

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the output artifacts including the target file path and an install command that bundles logos, which the agent could not otherwise predict.

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 that names the section and its three return values with zero filler. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the code file, the install command, and the builder link. It is complete enough to call and interpret; minor gaps like ordering expectations (search first) sit in the schema rather than the prose.

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 five parameters (logos, names, style, layout, heading) already carry inline descriptions and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Build') and resource ('Trusted by' logo cloud section), then enumerates the three concrete artifacts returned (React code path, shadcn install command, builder link). This clearly distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_logo_component and search_logos, which fetch rather than generate.

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 a generative/composition role distinct from the lookup siblings, but never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., that search_logos should be called first to obtain slugs, though that hint lives only in the schema). Usage is inferable, not 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?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's added value is the enumeration of returned content, which is useful but omits auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g. what happens on an unknown slug).

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 verb and scope, and every listed noun corresponds to actual returned content. No 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?

For a read-only single-parameter lookup, the annotations carry the safety profile and the description explains the payload, so basic invocation is covered. The gap is boundary-setting against three closely related siblings, which matters for correct tool selection here.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented with an example ('stripe'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single-parameter schema 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 ('Get one logo's details') and enumerates the content returned (variants, brand color, SVG URLs, React component name, shadcn command). However, it never distinguishes this aggregate call from siblings get_logo_svg and get_logo_component, which appear to return overlapping subsets.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions that would route an agent to get_logo_svg, get_logo_component, or search_logos instead. The overlap with those siblings is left entirely to inference.

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 profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the return is complete component source (not a diff or snippet) and where that file lands, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown slug or error handling. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, 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 verb and resource, with the clarifying parenthetical earning its place by specifying exactly what is returned and where it is installed. No 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of explaining the return value (full TypeScript source), which is the main thing an agent needs. It is slightly thin on failure behavior for an invalid slug, but otherwise complete for a single-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'slug' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by showing <slug> substituted into both the package path (@logoforge/<slug>) and the file path (components/logos/<slug>.tsx), conveying that it is the logo identifier used for naming, but it never states accepted format or validity rules.

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 (Get) and a precise resource (the full TypeScript source of a logo's React component), and the parenthetical pinpoints the exact artifact via the shadcn install command and target file path. This implicitly distinguishes it from get_logo_svg and get_logo by output format, so an agent can pick the right sibling without opening schemas.

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 parenthetical implies the use case (you want the installed React component source rather than raw SVG or metadata), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lowered. The description still adds genuine behavior beyond that: unavailable variants throw an error that enumerates the available ones, and the output is described as paste-ready optimized markup. No rate limits or size caveats, but strong for this tool type.

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?

Three tight sentences, all front-loaded: purpose, stack routing, prerequisite. Zero filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description explicitly characterizes the return value (raw optimized SVG markup) and specifies failure behavior and a prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 variant enum is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description implies the variant concept and points to get_logo for discovery, but adds no syntax or default meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (raw, optimized SVG markup of one logo variant), plus the intended consumption targets (inline HTML/JSX/Vue/Svelte or .svg file). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_logo_component, so an agent can route correctly without opening both schemas.

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?

Names the condition for use (non-React stacks or a single file), names the alternative (get_logo_component for React), and gives a prerequisite (call get_logo first to see available variants). When/when-not/alternative are all present.

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 elsewhere. The description adds the useful detail that results are aggregated with per-category logo counts, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-state behavior.

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 that states the action, the resource, and the payload in one pass with 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?

For a no-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (categories plus counts). Only minor details like ordering or whether empty categories are included are absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The added note about counts is a return-shape hint rather than parameter 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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('logo categories') and adds the scope detail that each entry includes a logo count. It clearly differs in kind from siblings like get_logo or search_logos, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool the usage is largely self-evident, so this is implied guidance rather than a gap, but nothing in the text routes the agent.

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 non-open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the return-type note (slugs); it says nothing about result caps, ranking, or empty-result behavior beyond what annotations and schema give.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 states what comes back (slugs) and how they connect to sibling tools. For a 3-parameter search tool this is nearly complete, missing only guidance on limit and result breadth.

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 67%; the schema documents query and category clearly but leaves limit undocumented. The description's 'by name, alias or category' loosely maps to query and category but adds no syntax, matching, or limit semantics beyond 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 (search) and resource (Logoforge developer brand logos) plus the searchable fields (name, alias, category). It implies differentiation by noting it returns slugs for other tools, but does not explicitly name a sibling such as list_categories, so it stops short of full sibling separation.

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 'Returns slugs to use with the other tools' implies this is the entry point before get_logo/get_logo_svg, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs list_categories guidance or when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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