read_icon

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

The description mentions the tool reads and returns data but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. Given no annotations, the description should carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or safety.

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 tool's purpose and output, with no unnecessary information.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains functionality and return value. It could be slightly improved by noting the read-only nature, but is largely complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description for 'bundle_path'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 reads and inspects an existing .icon bundle, specifying the return of manifest JSON and assets list. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like 'create_icon' or 'add_layer_to_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 reading icon bundles but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'export_marketing' or 'export_preview'. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided.

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