search_flet_icons

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool queries the installed flet version's icon database and warns against hallucinated names. This adds useful behavior context, though it doesn't detail return formatting (output schema likely covers that).

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 compact and front-loaded with the most critical warning ('NEVER invent icon names'), then follows with a clear Args block. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 search tool with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, this description is fully sufficient. It covers the core purpose, the critical failure mode to avoid, the data source, and all parameter semantics.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each argument: query with examples, icon_set with its allowed values and default, and max_results with its default. This is exactly what the agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 searches for valid flet icon names for ft.Icons.* / ft.CupertinoIcons.*, with specific examples. It also differentiates itself by noting it reads the installed flet version's icon database, making its scope unambiguous.

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 strong usage guidance: never invent icon names because models hallucinate them, and instead query the database. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is the authoritative tool for icon name lookup.

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