list_colors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It confirms a read operation but doesn't disclose return format, potential localization, or any side effects. Since it's a simple list operation, the absence of extra behavioral details is not critical, but some additional context would be beneficial.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. It front-loads the key action and resource, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 simplicity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It doesn't detail the return structure, but that is self-evident for a palette getter. The context of calendars and events is clear enough for the agent to select it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by definition. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain any parameter nuances. No improvement needed.

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 retrieves the color palette available for calendars and events, using the specific verb '取得します' (get) and a concrete resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on calendar/event CRUD and free/busy 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 conveys the context of use: obtaining colors for calendars and events. It doesn't explicitly provide exclusions or alternative tool comparisons, but the scope is clear, and for a parameterless lookup tool, this is adequate guidance.

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