Tailwind Shades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining the intent (prefer a palette class over an arbitrary value) and the fallback pathway, though it doesn't discuss precision/tie-breaking behavior for near-equal shades.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by decision guidance. No filler, and the example is embedded efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, yet the description still previews the result shape (red-500). For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% – both the color format list and the tailwindVersion enum with default are fully documented in the schema. The description's example color reinforces but adds no syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('finds the shade in Tailwind's default palette') and grounds it with a concrete example mapping (#db4d53 -> red-500). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling generate_palette, which is named as the alternative.

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?

Explicit guidance: use this to pick an existing Tailwind class instead of an arbitrary value, and switch to generate_palette when the visual difference is noticeable. The when/when-not split is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the input color is preserved at its best-fit shade while the remaining shades are derived from the closest Tailwind color, so the agent knows output is deterministic and visually consistent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then the trigger condition, then a behavioral guarantee. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be restated. For a single-shot, five-parameter generation tool with fully documented params and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, color, format, output, tailwindVersion) is already documented with defaults and enums in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: generates a full Tailwind CSS palette (50-950) from one color, ready to paste. It also contrasts the tool with the naive alternative (writing a single variable or inventing shades), so an agent can tell why this exists rather than reaching for closest_tailwind_color.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Call it whenever you add a color to a Tailwind theme' with a concrete example prompt. It names the anti-pattern to avoid ('instead of writing a single variable or inventing shades'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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