get_icon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific icon') and lists key details (metadata, creator, tags, download URLs) without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and key output aspects, but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, and doesn't explain return values since no output schema exists. This meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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, with clear documentation for 'icon_id' and 'thumbnail_size' (including enum values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'detailed information' but not elaborating on how parameters affect the output. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific icon', specifying metadata, creator, tags, and download URLs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_icon' (which likely downloads files) and 'search_icons' (which searches multiple icons), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or differentiate beyond the scope of a single icon.

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 for retrieving metadata of a specific icon, suggesting it's for detailed lookup rather than searching or downloading. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_icons' for broader queries or 'download_icon' for file retrieval, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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