icon_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully conveys that this is a human-in-the-loop UI tool ('让用户在里面挑选或调整') rather than one that mutates project state directly, which is meaningful context. However it says nothing about whether a project window must already be open, what happens when the window is already open, or what the call returns.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Slightly more could be gained only by adding the routing information the description currently lacks.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), so not much is required. Still, an agent would benefit from knowing the relationship to icon_set and whether an open project is a precondition, both of which are absent.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the instance_id/project_path either-or rule and the case where both may be omitted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (打开) and resource (编辑器的「图标制作」窗口) and enumerates the three kinds of content available inside (官方图标模板、文字模板、AI 图标). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the closely related sibling icon_set, so an agent must infer which of the two it needs.

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?

Usage is only implied: opening a window so the user can browse or adjust icons suggests a create/browse flow, as opposed to icon_set which presumably applies one. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling alternative, leaving the boundary to inference.

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