get_icon_glyph_by_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a glyph, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid icon names), performance (e.g., response time), or output format (e.g., Unicode character details). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a Unicode string, error messages) or behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to ensure reliable use by 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'style'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining icon naming conventions or style implications. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('glyph for a specific icon with a particular style'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_icons' or 'search_icons' by focusing on retrieving a single glyph. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_icon_glyphs' (plural), which might be a batch version, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_icon_glyphs', 'list_icons', or 'search_icons'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing valid icon names) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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