art.workflow.palette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses what the tool returns ('role-to-hex mappings, maximum color count, and forbidden colors') and implies a read-only palette lookup. It does not cover edge cases or invalid materials, but it is transparent about the core behavior.

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 purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action and return shape are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a single clear directive. Every sentence 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?

For a simple lookup with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return contents and when to use the tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of role-to-hex mappings, max color count, and forbidden colors. Minor gaps such as error behavior or output formatting do not significantly hinder correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the 'material' parameter and the omit-for-general-palette behavior. The description adds the 'strict palette' framing and reinforces that colors are constrained, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the strict palette for a material') and lists concrete return contents: role-to-hex mappings, maximum color count, and forbidden colors. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling art.get_palette beyond the 'strict' qualifier.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use this before painting to know EXACTLY which colors are allowed.' This tells the agent when to call the tool, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as art.get_palette or art.workflow.guide.

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