getGlobalIcons

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behaviors such as pagination (though schema has page_size/page_number), potential rate limits, or error handling. The description is too brief to inform the agent of these aspects.

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 very short and to the point, but it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness. It is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks supporting context for parameters.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return structure, pagination, or how to use the fields parameter. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely repeats the tool's action. The schema already documents each parameter with descriptions.

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 action (Returns), the resource (a list of Icons), and the scope (Global context). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getGlobalIcon (singular) and getProjectIcons (project-specific).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that getGlobalIcon retrieves a single icon, or that getProjectIcons is for project-specific icons. Missing context on pagination or filtering via parameters.

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