list_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about the icons' line-style and consistent visual language, but it does not disclose behaviors like case-insensitivity, no-match handling, or limit enforcement beyond what the schema already states.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes an example and a generalizable insight about the icon set. Every sentence contributes value 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 simple search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, result format (icon names), and stylistic consistency. It omits edge-case behavior like empty results or pagination, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example icon names, which clarifies the expected format, but does not significantly enhance the meaning of the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the Tabler icon library by name substring, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_examples, validate_scene, and render_scene, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for finding icon names usable in scene specs, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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