get_icon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return payload ("SVG content ready for use"), which is genuine value, but says nothing about error handling for unknown names, caching, or whether png/optimize options change the output despite the format parameter allowing png.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the identifier convention, then the return value. No filler, though the third example icon (simple-icons:github) is slightly redundant padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly fills that gap by stating it returns usable SVG. For a single-item getter with 83% schema coverage, this is nearly complete, though it never touches the library/format/optimize options that shape the return.

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 83%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description's prefix:name convention and examples duplicate the name parameter's own schema description, adding no new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a specific icon") and the identifier scheme ("prefix:name"), which lets an agent distinguish it from search_icons and get_multiple_icons. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the singling-out of "a specific icon" does implicit work.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The agent is left to infer that this is for fetching one known icon vs. searching or bulk-fetching, but nothing in the text states that routing.

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