l_download_svg

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does add two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the return is SVG text (not a URL or binary) and no login is required ("open source, no login"). It stops short of disclosing failure behavior for unknown icon names, rate limits, or whether size/color alter the returned markup — the kind of detail that matters for a mutation-free but parameterized fetch.

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 sentences, no filler, with the identifying source prefix front-loaded and the alternative-tool pointer placed last. Every clause 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 simple three-parameter read tool, the description plus fully documented schema covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that no auth is needed, and where to go for multi-source downloads. Without annotations or an output schema, a brief note on how the SVG text is delivered would have closed the remaining gap.

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 name, size, and color are already documented with examples in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about defaults, units, or what happens when size/color are omitted. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

"[Lucide] Download a lucide icon as SVG text" gives a specific verb (download), resource (a Lucide icon), and output form (SVG text), plus the source library in brackets. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-identical sibling i_download_svg, so the agent must infer that the l_ prefix means Lucide and the i_ prefix means the other source.

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 names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it: "For unified download from any source, use i_download instead." That is clear routing guidance. The gap is that it never says when to prefer this over i_download_svg, the sibling it most closely resembles.

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