getProjectIcon

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states 'Returns' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a read operation, minimal but not sufficiently transparent.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Appropriate for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 simplicity of the tool and the fact that schema covers all parameters, the description is adequate. However, it lacks details about return format and error scenarios. Without an output schema, a bit more context would be helpful.

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 all parameters described (projectId, iconId, fields). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Returns' and resource 'specified Icon' within 'Project context'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getProjectIcons' (plural) and 'getGlobalIcon' by specifying that this returns a single icon from the project context.

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 (e.g., getProjectIcons, getGlobalIcon). Missing explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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