get_icon_svg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly states what the tool returns: 'full SVG markup' and 'ready-to-embed SVG code.' This is appropriate transparency for a simple read-like retrieval tool, covering the output without requiring more detail.

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 two compact sentences: it leads with the action and resource, provides the id format and example, and appends the return value. Every sentence adds necessary context, and there is no irrelevant detail.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, how to identify the parameter, where to find valid ids, and what the response is. It omits error behavior, but that is not a significant gap for such a straightforward getter.

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 schema already documents the id parameter with a relevant example, and the description echoes the format and adds the useful note about obtaining ids from search_icons. That is slight reinforcement but not substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource: full SVG markup of an Infyicon icon by id. It also provides the id format and contrasts with sibling tools by specifying SVG rather than PNG or category listing.

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 gives clear context by explaining the id format and directing users to get ids from search_icons. It does not explicitly list when to prefer this tool over get_icon_png, but the guidance about id acquisition supports correct usage.

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