l_list_all

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: no login is required, so i_login/ov_check_auth flows can be skipped. It says nothing about what a result entry contains (names only? SVG bodies?), whether ordering is stable, or that the 2007+ icon catalog is paginated rather than returned whole.

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 with the scope constraint and the auth fact packed into it; nothing is redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is mostly sufficient, but it omits the one thing an agent needs to plan around: the catalog is 2007+ items against a default page size of 50, so multiple calls are required.

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% — both page and pageSize are documented with defaults and the 200 max — so the baseline is 3. The description adds no guidance on traversal, such as roughly 40 pages of 50 being needed to enumerate 2007+ icons.

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 and resource ("List all available lucide icons") and the bracketed "[Lucide]" prefix separates it from the Iconify-prefixed siblings. It remains ambiguous versus the sibling l_search, which also operates on the Lucide catalog, so the listing-versus-searching distinction is only implied by the word "all".

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "List all" suggests catalog browsing, and "(open source, no login)" hints that no authentication step is needed first. It never names an alternative such as l_search for targeted lookups or l_get_tags for filtering, and gives no condition for choosing between them.

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