get_icon_svg

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

With no annotations, the description must carry transparency. It correctly implies a read-only retrieval, but does not disclose behavior for invalid names, error handling, or side effects. It does not contradict anything, but leaves some behavioral aspects unstated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the raw SVG markup for a Lucide icon by name.' No filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score.

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 tool's simplicity and complete parameter schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core output (raw SVG markup) and the schema covers all inputs, but omits details on return behavior for nonexistent icons or default license/class inclusion, which are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description only adds a high-level reference to the 'name' parameter, providing no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('raw SVG markup for a Lucide icon'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_icon_metadata or add_icon_to_project. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 when you know the icon name and need its raw SVG, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_icons for finding icons or get_icon_metadata for details. No exclusions are mentioned.

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