get_icon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output category (path), the parameter relationship (kind selects map, key selects item), and the list behavior when key is omitted. It doesn't discuss error/unknown-kind behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is a minor 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most important fact (result is an icon path) is front-loaded. The parenthetical and the 'omit key' instruction each add distinct value without 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 two-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers the return type, the controlled vocabulary source (icon_maps), and a discovery mechanism (omit key). It does not explain where icon_maps lives or error behavior, but the built-in listing compensates for discoverability.

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 0%, so the description must explain both params. It does: kind selects an icon map for hero/skill/item/pet, and key is optional and, when omitted, triggers listing of kinds. It doesn't enumerate valid key strings or exact formats, but gives enough functional meaning.

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 identifies the tool's output (icon path) and scope (hero/skill/item/pet) and introduces the kind concept from icon_maps. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns,' but the second sentence ('Omit key to list icon kinds') makes the function clear. No sibling tool competes for icon lookups, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

It gives actionable usage context: pass a kind to get a path, omit key to list icon kinds, and source the kind from icon_maps. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not conditions, but no sibling icon tool exists and the context is clear enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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