get_state_theme_colors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the semantic meaning of color_ref as 'the GUID that states point to', which is not derivable from the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the whole thing is short. However, the return shape is stated twice ('Returns count and colors [...]' and then 'Returns: { count, colors: [...] }'), a redundant sentence that could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately documents the return payload (count plus color records with rgb/alpha and the color_ref GUID). Combined with the routing note and param naming, an agent has what it needs; only edge details like empty-palette behavior are 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% and the schema already notes the 'state_tree_path, unlike its sibling tools' naming distinction. The description's 'Takes state_tree_path, not tree_path' largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('theme color palette of a StateTree asset') with the underlying field named (UStateTreeEditorData Colors). It also distinguishes itself from the mutation sibling by naming set_state_theme_color, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states 'without changing it' and routes to set_state_theme_color for writing, giving a clear when-to-use vs alternative. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. whether the asset must be loaded/open), but the usage context is unambiguous.

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