Palette Quality Audit

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool is deterministic and has no LLM cost, which helps the agent understand performance and reliability. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the purpose, then lists criteria, output, and usage notes. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 complexity of a quality audit tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs (palette), criteria checked, and output structure. It could mention that only the palette parameter is required, but the schema already indicates that.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so description adds little extra meaning. It does mention 'Hex values' for the palette parameter, which aligns with the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 it performs a 'full palette quality audit' on multiple specific criteria (accessibility, cultural risk, tonal balance, colour diversity, archive naming strength) and returns a score, grade, and fix list. This differentiates it from sibling tools like palette_generate or palette_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?

Explicitly says 'use before shipping any palette', providing a clear when-to-use context. Does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools suggest other palette operations, and this tool is positioned as a final quality gate.

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