suggest_icons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns 'icon names' but does not mention the number of suggestions, potential latency, or whether it requires external resources. The description lacks details on side effects or permissions, which are important for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, preventing a perfect score.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of names, maybe with relevance scores) or any pagination or limits. Without an output schema, the description should provide more detail on what the agent can expect as a result.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'context', with a clear example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Hence, the description meets the baseline for a well-documented parameter but does not exceed it.

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 purpose: 'Get icon suggestions for a scientific diagram context'. It specifies the action (suggest icons), the input (a description), and the output (icon names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_icons' and 'insert_icon', which have different functions.

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 usage when one needs icon suggestions from a description, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'search_icons' or state when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or limitations, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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