aura_icon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: auto-fallback across styles then libraries, mandatory CC BY 4.0 credit on every hit, a bundled font/CSS alternative, and a 24h cache. Error behavior and rate limits are not covered, but the return-content and caching context is substantial.

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 definition is dense and front-loaded, leading with the verb and the concrete deliverable (ready-to-paste SVG) before drilling into parameters and behavior. Nearly every clause carries information, though the enum re-listing is marginally redundant given the schema.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must stand alone, and it does describe the returned artifact (SVG plus license/credit and a font/CSS alternative) and caching. For a 3-parameter fetch tool this is nearly complete, with only failure/timeout behavior left unaddressed.

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 add the meaning. It contributes the kebab-case format with concrete examples (bolt, arrow-down) and explains that "auto" resolves by falling back styles-then-libraries, which is genuinely new. It does not explain what each source/style option actually yields, and the bare enum listing largely restates the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one free icon as ready-to-paste SVG") plus the output format, so the agent can tell this is a single-icon retrieval tool rather than a search. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. aura_search_assets, aura_get_component), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied through parameter hints such as the auto-fallback behavior and the enumerated source/style values. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance and no exclusions, so the agent must infer that this is the tool for grabbing one concrete icon rather than searching.

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