iconfont-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operations, the description discloses authentication requirements ('requires authentication via Iconfont cookie'), multiple authentication methods (cookie arg, environment variable, or iconfont_login tool), and cookie sourcing details ('from browser dev tools after logging into iconfont.cn'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 (purpose, authentication details, args, returns, notes, examples) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While comprehensive, some information like cookie sourcing details could be considered slightly verbose, but most sentences earn their place by providing necessary context.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with authentication), rich annotations covering safety aspects, and detailed parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides complete context. It covers authentication requirements, usage examples, return format details, and distinguishes from sibling tools, making it fully adequate for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's 'Args' section repeats the schema information without adding significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('List all projects') and resource ('in the user's Iconfont account'), distinguishing it from siblings like iconfont_get_project_detail (which gets details for a specific project) and iconfont_project_search_icons (which searches within a project). The verb 'List' is precise and the scope 'all projects' is explicit.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Examples' section stating 'Use when: "See all my icon projects"' and 'Use when: "Find project ID for a specific project"'. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like iconfont_get_project_detail (for specific project details) or iconfont_search_icons (for searching icons across projects).

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