render_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'pure local operation, no API calls,' which is helpful, but it omits details like error handling for missing icons or whether the original HTML is mutated.

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 with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action and adds a behavioral note efficiently.

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 and complete parameter schema, the description covers the essential transformation and safety aspect. However, it lacks explanation of the return value format, which would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions, so the tool description does not need to add parameter details. It provides context about the transformation but does not enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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's action: replacing <icon> tags with <img> tags using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_templates and generate_image by focusing on a localized icon substitution step.

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 mentions it is a local operation with no API calls, implying safe usage, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like fill_placeholders. No exclusions or context for complex scenarios are given.

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