Discover ICC Plus capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool extracts evidence from ICC Plus and lists the evidence types, which is consistent with the annotations and provides some context. However, it doesn't describe the return structure, pagination, or what happens when no topic is given beyond listing families. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate—some added context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and then enumerates the evidence types. It's concise and readable, though the long list makes it slightly dense. No wasted words, and the key purpose is stated upfront.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the response looks like (e.g., a list of families, a structured index, or function bodies). The topic parameter's syntax is covered by the schema, but the description could mention that the result is a list or index to set expectations. Since it's a read-only discovery tool and the schema is rich, a 3 feels adequate—it's not incomplete enough to mislead, but it could give more detail on return format.

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 100%, so every parameter (file, limit, topic, offset, include_source) already has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 function: 'List feature families or return field, type, function-body, source-file, deployment-artifact, or Custom CSS evidence extracted from ICC Plus.' It names a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the kinds of evidence returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like iccplus_schema or iccplus_css_catalog by being a broader discovery tool, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling. Slight ambiguity remains around what 'feature families' means, but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., iccplus_schema for schema details, iccplus_css_catalog for CSS specifics). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor any mention of alternatives. The only usage hint is 'Omit to list all feature families,' which is a parameter behavior, not a selection guideline. An agent would have to infer from sibling names and the description that this is a general discovery entry point.

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