validate_icon_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only report and uses 'likely' to suggest heuristic analysis, but does not disclose permissions, scope, or whether any changes are made. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. While concise, it may be under-specified, but it earns high marks for efficiency and directness.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter with no description, the tool description does not explain what the report contains, how 'likely missing' is determined, or what inputs are expected. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 makes no mention of the 'root' parameter. The parameter name is ambiguous (e.g., root directory, root element) and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('icon usage') to indicate it finds likely missing accessibility labels, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'audit_icons' that may perform broader audits. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or type of icons, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_icons' or 'search_icons'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclude cases, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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