Analyze ICC Plus Custom CSS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context by saying the analysis is 'static' and applies to 'stored or candidate' CSS. It does not describe the output or diagnostic behavior, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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, dense, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the analysis dimensions. Every clause adds meaningful information, and there is no repetition of annotation or schema data.

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 read-only static analysis tool, the description covers the main inputs and analysis areas reasonably well. But because there is no output schema, the agent is left without explicit information about what the tool returns, and the two undocumented parameters remain unexplained, leaving gaps in fully anticipating the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema describes `css` and `project_id`, and the description reinforces those semantics with 'stored or candidate CSS'. However, `include_rules` and `max_diagnostics` have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description, so the description does not fully compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Statically analyze stored or candidate CSS' and enumerates concrete analysis dimensions like syntax, selector specificity, official classes, project ids, inline-style conflicts, and external assets. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like iccplus_css_catalog or iccplus_css_set.

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 clear context for when the tool applies: when analyzing either stored project CSS or a candidate CSS string. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer boundaries from the sibling names rather than from explicit guidance.

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