get_icon_svg

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it calls a public API, resolves to outlined variant with filled fallback, normalizes underscores, and details the return object shape. It also provides rendering instructions (svgMask, styles.background, square box). This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations.

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 dense and well-organized, starting with purpose, then usage, parameter details, return format, and rendering. While it is long, every sentence provides valuable information. Slight trimming could improve conciseness, but the structure is logical.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and even post-processing (rendering). It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the icons parameter, but the description adds significant meaning: acceptable formats (ms:, fa:, Iconify ID, bare name), normalization (underscores to hyphens, outlined variant), and example values. This substantially enhances understanding beyond the schema description.

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 resolves icon-font names into inline SVG markup via the public Iconify API. It specifies the resources (Material Symbols/Font Awesome names, Iconify IDs) and differentiates from siblings like ingest_html/ingest_url which surface the icons but do not convert them to SVG.

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 explains when to use the tool: after ingest_html/ingest_url to get SVG for icon references like 'ms:verified' or 'fa:chart-line'. It includes acceptable input formats and normalization rules. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or describe alternatives beyond the implicit context.

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