get_icon

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 does disclose the output behavior ('full record and exact import statement'), which is the core behavioral trait for a getter. However, it does not mention failure behavior for unknown icons, provider-specific formatting, or any other side effects, leaving a moderate gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, conveys the scoping constraint, and includes a clarifying example. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 simple getter with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and the tool's niche relative to siblings. The only minor gap is the lack of error/failure semantics for unknown icon names, which is low-stakes for a read-only lookup.

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%, so the schema already documents name, version, and provider including examples and defaults. The description adds only an example mapping ('Trash2 from lucide') but no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') with a specific resource ('full record and exact import statement') and adds a scoping constraint ('whose name is already known') that clearly differentiates it from the sibling search_icons. The concrete example 'Trash2 from lucide' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

'Whose name is already known' gives clear context for when to use this tool versus searching, implicitly routing the agent away from search_icons and toward this tool when the name is known. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the explicit-alternative bar.

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