Get Cisco Icon Image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the image is pre-converted from CMYK to RGB (addressing rendering issues in Miro/Figma), the icons are not square (affecting scale mode), and the error message format. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 (Args, Returns, Error Handling) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It's slightly verbose in the Returns section but every sentence adds value (e.g., the FIT vs FILL scale mode warning is important). No wasted words, but could be tightened slightly.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the return format (image + metadata), the image characteristics (PNG, RGB, non-square), error handling, and usage flow. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return structure. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100% and the schema already describes the id parameter with examples and guidance to get it from search/list. The description reinforces this with the same examples and adds the case-sensitivity note, which is a small but useful addition. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 4 is appropriate for the slight extra value.

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 fetches a Cisco network icon by id, returning both metadata and the image as PNG/RGB. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's the retrieval step after search/list, and explains the image conversion from CMYK to RGB, which is unique to this tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after cisco_search_icons or cisco_list_icons to get the exact id, and warns not to guess ids. It also provides error handling guidance (call search first, don't retry with variations), which is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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