list_icons

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: results are scoped to the 'configured workspace' and returns names only, not full icon objects. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey, though it could still mention return format details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: action, target, and scope are all present in one line.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is fully sufficient. Annotations cover side effects, schema empty means no parameter docs needed, and the return type (icon names) is directly inferable from the sentence. No critical gaps remain for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 ('List'), a distinct resource ('icon names'), and a scope ('configured workspace'). It clearly differs from sibling tools that perform single-icon operations (read_icon, update_icon) or creation (create_icon), making the tool's role immediately clear.

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 'list' vs 'read' wording implies this tool is for enumerating all icon names rather than accessing a specific icon, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage context must be inferred from the name and sibling set rather than stated.

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