Listar íconos disponibles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that it mirrors the application's drawer icons ('Son los mismos íconos que ofrece el cajón de la aplicación'), confirming parity with UI. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but with a simple read-only list tool and full annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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, dense sentence that packs the resource, the scope restriction, the group structure, and the parity with the UI drawer. It's efficient with no wasted words. Slightly more structure (e.g., separate sentences for groups and parity) could improve scannability, but it's not verbose by any measure.

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 this is a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with a fully self-explanatory purpose, the description is largely complete. It covers what's returned, the scope (shape='icon'), and grouping. The only minor gap is the return format (e.g., whether it's a flat list or nested object), but with the grouping enumerated it's reasonably inferable for a competent 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so there's nothing to document. The description explains what the OUTPUT will be (grouped icon keys), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Since there are no params, the baseline of 4 applies and the description appropriately focuses on the value/format instead.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Devuelve las claves de ícono válidas' (returns valid icon keys) for shape='icon' nodes. It specifies the exact scope (icon keys for shape='icon'), the grouping structure (General, GCP, AWS, Azure, Estados, Varios), and differentiates from siblings since it's the icon-specific list vs list_colors, list_anims, list_fonts, list_templates.

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 states the explicit use context: obtaining valid icon keys for nodes with shape='icon'. The grouping info gives practical usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., to get color options use list_colors), though the sibling names make this reasonably inferable.

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