colour_slugsReturn every developer token format for a hex value: CSS variable, kebab-case, camelCase, PascalCase, Tailwind class, TypeScript const, SCSS variable. Archive-grounded name source with dE2000 distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | Hex value e.g. #D4A829 | |
| archive | No | Optional archive filter |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the name source is archive-grounded and uses dE2000 distance for color matching, which helps the agent anticipate how results are produced. No contradictions with 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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and lists all output formats; the second provides the naming source. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description, combined with a complete input schema and the presence of an output schema, provides sufficient context for a read-only transformation tool. It lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., invalid hex) and prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage.
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 100%, as both hex and archive parameters are already described in the input schema. The description mentions 'hex value' and 'Archive-grounded' which loosely connects to the archive parameter, but it adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific action (return every developer token format) for a given hex value, listing concrete outputs (CSS variable, kebab-case, camelCase, PascalCase, Tailwind class, TypeScript const, SCSS variable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like colour_namer by focusing on developer token formats and mentioning archive-grounded naming with dE2000 distance.
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 implies usage when developers need naming conventions from a hex value, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so usage context is only implied, not explicit.
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.