Discover ICC Plus Custom CSS targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the list contains ('source evidence' and 'project-specific escaped selectors'), which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and object. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it uses jargon like 'escaped' and 'source evidence' that may require domain knowledge. Still, it earns points for efficiency.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too brief to be fully complete. It does not explain the distinction between 'official' and 'project' scopes, what 'source evidence' means, or what the returned data looks like. An agent would need to infer many details from names and context, which is risky for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (only query and project_id have text). The description does not compensate by explaining kind, scope, limit, or offset semantics. With low coverage and no description-level guidance, parameters like kind and scope remain underdocumented, leaving the agent unsure how to use them effectively.

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 lists official viewer classes and project-specific selectors, with a specific verb ('List') and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like iccplus_css_analyze or iccplus_css_set, but the purpose is unambiguous and specific enough to be distinguished from them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iccplus_css_analyze or iccplus_css_set. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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