webdev_svg_optimizer

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: runs locally, contacts no external service, rate-limited (60 req/min), and details the return fields (optimized markup, sizes, ratio, optimizations list, base64 preview). No contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, lists operations, provides usage instructions, compares with siblings, mentions behavioral traits, then return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 2 parameters (one nested), the description covers purpose, input format, alternatives, behavioral traits (local, rate-limited), and output fields. With an output schema implied, the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely reiterating that the svg field receives raw SVG text and that options have defaults. The return value details are helpful but not parameter-specific.

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's purpose: optimize/minify SVG strings. It specifies operations (strip XML declaration, comments, DOCTYPE, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by naming related tools for CSS/HTML and data URI generation.

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 states when to use this tool (for SVG optimization) and when to use alternatives (webdev_css_minifier for CSS, webdev_html_minifier for HTML, webdev_data_uri_generator or webdev_base64_image_encoder for embedding). Also clarifies that it runs locally and is read-only, guiding appropriate use.

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