logo_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can return logos in different themes (light/dark) and multiple formats, implying no side effects. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., if a logo is not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any destructive potential. The description is minimally adequate for a read-only search tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections, bullet points, and examples, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and format options. While it is somewhat lengthy, every section provides useful information and no sentences are wasted.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. It covers input format, query examples, format options, and result components. It does not address pagination or errors, but for a single-return search tool, this is acceptable.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds significant value by explaining the format enum (TSX = TypeScript React component, etc.), providing example query arrays, and detailing what each result includes (component name, code, import instructions). This goes beyond the schema to clarify usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search and return logos in specified format (JSX, TSX, SVG).' It specifies the resource (logos) and the action (search/return). It distinguishes from sibling tools (component builder/inspiration/refiner) by focusing on logo retrieval rather than component creation or modification.

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 description includes a dedicated 'When to use this tool' section with two specific scenarios ('/logo' command and missing local logos) and provides example queries. This gives clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other scenarios.

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