Plan layered Icon Composer artwork

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral trait: it returns a specification, not a native .icon document, which is helpful. However, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or any constraints like max concept length, which the schema already covers.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence clarifies a limitation without extra fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to expect (a specification) and what it doesn't do (fabricate a native icon). It could be more complete by specifying the structure of the specification, but the absence of an output schema reduces that need. Siblings don't require explicit differentiation.

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 0%, and the description goes beyond the schema by clarifying the tool's output (specification vs binary) and the nature of the parameters: 'appName' and 'concept' are self-explanatory, but the description adds that the tool does not fabricate a native document, implying the concept is used for planning. With 2 params and minimal schema info, the description compensates well.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('separate-layer icon specification'), clearly indicating the tool produces a specification rather than a binary icon file. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on layered icon composition, which is not evident from sibling names. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to a sibling like 'plan_ios_app' that might also plan artwork.

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 implies it is for planning an app icon, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'create_app' or 'plan_ios_app'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need for an app concept) or exclusions (e.g., not for generating final assets). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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