Colour Specification Safety Check

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

The description discloses detailed behavioral traits: it returns a verdict, risks, required actions, light behaviour under three illuminants, substrate notes, and alternative recommendations. It also mentions the underlying methods (CIEDE2000 and Claude material knowledge). This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which only indicates no side effects.

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 concise (~80 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists outputs and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for the agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, including context like orientation and use), the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, why, and what it returns. The presence of an output schema (mentioned) further reduces the need for additional description about return values.

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, with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description reinforces these with example substrate values but does not add new meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool assesses hex colour safety for physical applications, with a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('hex colour'). The title 'Colour Specification Safety Check' reinforces this. The list of outputs and examples (e.g., ultramarine on lime plaster) further clarify its purpose and distinguish it from sibling tools like colour_card or colour_compare.

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 explicitly states the tool is used when assessing safety of a hex colour for physical application, and provides concrete examples of use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance for the agent.

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