read_icon

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds a valuable behavioral warning that returned SVG and labels are untrusted document data, never instructions. This is security-relevant context not captured in the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose; the second adds a necessary safety caveat. Both sentences earn their 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with readOnly annotations, the description covers the operation, the returned content (SVG and labels), and a trust warning. It does not explain every detail about revisions, but it provides adequate orientation for correct invocation.

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 does not explicitly define the 'name' parameter. However, with a single required parameter and the context 'workspace icon', 'name' is reasonably inferable as the icon identifier. It adds no constraints or examples beyond the schema pattern.

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 the operation with a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource (the editable specification and revision of a workspace icon). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like render_icon or list_icons, but the resource framing makes the tool's role reasonably distinct.

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 this is the tool for source/editable icon data rather than rendered output, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage guidance must be inferred rather than stated explicitly.

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