pob_gem_icons

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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is PNG imagery and that inputs are restricted to Lua-catalog IDs, but says nothing about how the images are returned, batch limits, or partial-failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the output format stated first and the input constraint second; nothing is padded. 'Оригинальные' is mildly decorative but consistent with the naming convention of sibling icon tools.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter icon retrieval tool, and the description covers what it returns and where inputs may come from. With no output schema, a brief note on the response shape would have closed the remaining gap, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does add one valuable constraint — that IDs must come from the Lua catalog — but does not explain the array form, the practical 1–24 cardinality limit, or whether order is preserved in the response.

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 names a concrete resource and format: original Path of Building gem icons returned as PNG. It distinguishes the resource from siblings such as pob_tree_icons or pob_tree_textures by specifying 'gem' icons, though an explicit 'returns/renders' verb is only implied.

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?

'Принимает только ID из каталога Lua' hints that the caller must obtain IDs from a catalog first, which is useful context. However, it never names the catalog tool (e.g. pob_catalog) and gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over pob_gem_tooltip, pob_tree_icons, or pob_render_image.

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