audit_icons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive audit ('Find'), but does not disclose output format, whether any files are modified, or how 'likely unused' is determined. Insufficient detail for an unannotated tool.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, its brevity edges into under-specification, which limits its effectiveness.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits crucial details such as what constitutes 'duplicate' vs 'unused', the output format, and how to invoke it (i.e., what 'root' means). Sibling tools overlap, yet no differentiation is given.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'root' parameter. The single sentence mentions 'local icon assets' but never clarifies that 'root' likely refers to a project directory. This is a critical gap for a required parameter.

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 action ('Find') and the target ('duplicate and likely unused local Android/Flutter icon assets'), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_icon and import_icon by focusing on analysis rather than mutation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_icon_usage or search_icons. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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