preview_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses truncation of lists to 12, clamping of limit, acceptance of icon_refs up to 100, and returned items. It lacks explicit read-only or auth info, but the preview nature implies no side effects.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-loading purpose and usage, then listing capabilities. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains return types (preview page, PNG URL, Markdown snippet, contact sheet). It covers main use cases and edge cases like truncation. Could add example usage but is adequate for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some behavioral context (truncation, clamping) but largely repeats schema info. No new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 refines icon result sets or previews known icon refs, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from the sibling search_icons by advising to use that first for normal requests.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use search_icons first for normal icon requests,' providing a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not address exclusions for its sibling tools inspect_converter_options and convert_svg_to_png.

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