iconfont-mcp

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false), indicating a safe, non-destructive, and deterministic operation. The description adds value by specifying the return details ('Current login status and whether a cookie is available'), which isn't covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, simple purpose) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is mostly complete. It adds return value details, which is helpful since there's no output schema. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning typical use cases or error conditions, but this is minor for such a straightforward 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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though trivial). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. It appropriately focuses on the return values instead.

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: 'Check if currently logged in to Iconfont.' This is a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('login status'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iconfont_login' or 'iconfont_auto_login', which would require 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 implies usage by stating what it returns, suggesting it should be used to verify login status before performing actions that require authentication. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'iconfont_login' or 'iconfont_auto_login', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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