Get Icons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches an icon pack but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of icons, metadata), potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 ('Fetch the icon pack') and specifies the context ('used by Money Lover categories, wallets, and events'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 for a tool that fetches data. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., icon URLs, names, categories), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination). For a read operation with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return value.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'pack' documented as 'Icon pack identifier (defaults to "default")'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain what icon packs are available or how they relate to categories/wallets/events. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('icon pack used by Money Lover categories, wallets, and events'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but since no other tools mention icons, this is sufficiently clear. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is fetched rather than just restating the name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for fetching icons, or relationships to other tools like get_categories or get_wallets that might use these icons. Without such guidance, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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