get_icon_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves data and provides usage examples, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the returned data takes (e.g., JSON, SVG code), whether there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides critical parameter format details with examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter format well, but lacks details on return values (since no output schema exists), behavioral constraints, and differentiation from sibling tools. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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?

The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for the 'icon' parameter: it must be 'the full icon name in format 'prefix:icon-name'' with examples ('mdi:home', 'fa:user'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what prefixes are valid or where to find them.

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: 'Retrieve specific icon data with usage examples for popular frameworks'. It specifies the verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('icon data'), and scope ('usage examples for popular frameworks'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_icon_set' or 'search_icons', which likely retrieve different types of icon information.

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 provides some implied usage guidance by specifying the required input format ('Provide the full icon name in format 'prefix:icon-name'') and mentioning frameworks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_icons' or 'get_icon_set', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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