vizcharter_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the fuzzy-search mechanism, the supported cloud vendor packs, the return payload (registry ids, vendor category, aliases), and the intended use. It does not detail ordering, empty-result behavior, or case-sensitivity, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return value explanation. Every clause is informative and there is no fluff.

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-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure (ids, category, aliases) and gives concrete examples. It is slightly light on result ordering and exact return shape, but it is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, with both `query` and `limit` documented. The description adds context about fuzzy matching and output contents but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves, so it stays at the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Fuzzy-search') and a precise resource ('bundled official cloud icon packs — AWS, GCP, and Azure'), and it explains the output's purpose as node `icon` values. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling creation, update, export, theme, and template tools.

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 'to use as node `icon` values' provides a clear usage context, implying it should be called before creating or updating chart nodes that need icons. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when this tool is relevant.

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