accessibility_rulesConvert a palette WCAG matrix into actionable design-system rules. Returns safe pairs, AA-only pairs, large-text-only pairs, decorative-only pairs, best text colour per background, and component usage rules. Deterministic, no LLM cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| palette | Yes | Array of hex values |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool is deterministic and has no LLM cost, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotation. It also enumerates return categories, providing transparency about what the tool produces. No contradictions found.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action, the second lists outputs and performance characteristics. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the return values are covered. The description explains what the tool does, its inputs, and deterministic nature. The only gap is not explaining the prerequisite 'WCAG matrix' or when to call it relative to siblings, but this is a minor omission for a single-parameter read-only tool.
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%, so the description needn't repeat parameter details. The description mentions 'palette' in context but adds no syntax or formatting details beyond the schema's 'array of hex values'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the only parameter.
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 converts a WCAG matrix into design-system rules, listing specific outputs (safe pairs, AA-only pairs, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accessibility_check or accessibility_matrix by focusing on derived rules rather than validation or raw matrix generation. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.
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 context is implied: 'Deterministic, no LLM cost' suggests it should be used when a rule-based, inexpensive conversion is needed. But there is no explicit 'use this when' or alternatives listed. It assumes the agent knows to call this after obtaining a palette matrix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool clusters have unclear boundaries: colour_passport, colour_dna, colour_metrics, and colour_cultural_risk overlap heavily; palette_extract, extract_image_colours, image_palette, and ingest_image cover similar image-colour extraction territory; and compound tools like design_session, image_brief, session_brief, and archive_report_brief duplicate chains of component tools. The descriptions are detailed and occasionally state 'use this instead of X', but an agent still faces many near-duplicate choices.
Names are consistently snake_case and often use domain prefixes (colour_, palette_, archive_, brand_, accessibility_), but verb placement is mixed: some are verb_noun (extract_image_colours, query_hex, style_match), others are noun_verb (colour_dna, palette_generate, brand_audit), and a few standalone names (ui_states, tool_guide, meta_capabilities) don't fit either pattern. The convention is readable but not uniform.
At 88 tools, this is far beyond the reasonable well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold. Many tools are compound wrappers that consolidate chains of simpler tools, adding redundancy and cognitive load rather than genuine coverage.
For the apparent domain, the tool surface is extremely comprehensive: colour extraction, analysis, naming, accessibility, cultural/provenance research, palette generation, brand systems, interior design, ecommerce copy, image briefs, project lifecycle, exports, and diagnostic tools are all present. Persistent objects have list/get/versions/delete/export support, so there are no obvious dead ends.