get_glyph_svg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the output is SVG markup with a viewBox matching the glyph's metrics, which partially addresses return behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it address error behavior for invalid glyph names or the meaning of an empty master_id, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second provides useful return details. The third sentence ('Useful for seeing the glyph shape as a vector image.') is somewhat redundant with the first, but overall there is little waste and the structure is easy to scan.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to explain not only the return format but also parameter semantics and safety/error behavior. It does explain the return format, but it omits the purpose of master_id, the consequences of an invalid glyph_name, and an explicit read-only confirmation. For a simple 2-parameter tool, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it mentions neither glyph_name nor master_id. The schema's bare property titles ('Master Id', 'Glyph Name') and default value for master_id are the only clues; the description adds zero semantic value for parameters. This is a significant failure given the low coverage.

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 opens with 'Get a glyph rendered as SVG markup', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the function. The added detail 'Returns SVG with viewBox matching the glyph's metrics' further clarifies the output, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_glyph, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Useful for seeing the glyph shape as a vector image' implies a valid use case, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_glyph or list_glyphs. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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