Archive Gradient — Lab-Interpolated Colour Journey

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a generation tool. Description elaborates on key behaviors: interpolation methods (linear vs chroma_preserved), snapping to nearest archive colour via CIEDE2000, anchor stops kept true, and output formats. No contradictions; adds significant behavioral detail beyond 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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and scope, second details key parameters (interpolation, snapping, anchor behavior), third specifies output formats and use cases. Information density is high without being verbose.

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?

Covers essential aspects: anchor count, interpolation methods, snapping to archive, output formats. With output schema present (context signal), return structure is handled. Missing details like default values for steps and snap_to_archive are covered in schema. Adequate for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds meaningful context: explains the difference between 'linear' (straight Lab lerp) and 'chroma_preserved' (LCh short-arc, avoids desaturated midpoints), details that anchor snaps are true to source, and explains output formats. This enriches the schema without repeating it.

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?

Description clearly states 'Generate a perceptually smooth gradient between 2-5 archive anchor colours', specifying the action (generate), resource (gradient), and constraints (2-5 anchor colours). It distinctively focuses on color science (Lab interpolation, CIEDE2000) which differentiates it from sibling tools like palette_generate or colour_mix.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use for design briefs, colour journey visualisations, and gradient systems.' No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context of siblings (e.g., palette_generate, colour_mix, palette_specify) makes the gradient-specific purpose clear. Could be improved by noting when to avoid (e.g., for single colour generation).

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