iconfont-mcp

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing caching behavior ('Results are cached for 5 minutes based on the project's update time to reduce API calls'), which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions with annotations 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, caching, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded key information. It avoids redundancy, though the parameter descriptions in the 'Args' section slightly repeat schema details. Overall, it's efficient and easy to scan.

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 (read-only, 3 parameters), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It adds caching behavior and usage examples, though without an output schema, it could briefly clarify return value structure beyond listing fields. Still, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description repeats some parameter information (e.g., cookie and pid details) but adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema, such as noting the pid source. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('detailed information about a specific Iconfont project'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on project details rather than listing projects (iconfont_list_projects) or downloading/searching icons. The title reinforces this specificity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Get details of project 1997925') and references a sibling tool for obtaining the required pid ('can be obtained from iconfont_list_projects'). It also clarifies the optional cookie parameter as an alternative to environment variables, offering clear usage context.

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