color_blindness_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states intent, not effect. It does not say whether this is a read-only preview, whether it modifies the design, what the output looks like, or what side effects may occur.

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?

A single, front-loaded, waste-free sentence. It states the action, the object, and the goal without filler or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical context missing: what the agent will receive after invocation, whether the operation is safe/destructive, and how 'issues' are reported. An agent can glean the tool's intent but not the full contract.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the type enum. The description adds no additional meaning about how nodeId is resolved or how the type affects simulation, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('simulate') and names the resource ('a design') and outcome ('check for issues'), clearly distinguishing it from contrast-checking or accessibility-audit tools. It is slightly vague about what 'issues' means, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies it is used to preview color vision deficiencies, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like check_contrast, audit_accessibility, or color_check_all. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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