color_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the main behavior—extract unique colors and organize by frequency—but neither confirms read-only status nor describes output format or potential 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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the frequency-organization behavior follows immediately, making it easy for an 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?

For a one-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description covers what is extracted, the scope (a frame), and the arrangement (by usage frequency). However, with no output schema, it leaves the exact return structure and color representation unspecified.

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%, but the schema only says 'Root node.' The description's phrase 'from a frame' adds meaningful semantic value by clarifying that nodeId should identify a frame node, going beyond the bare parameter description.

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 the specific verb 'extract' and names the resource ('a frame'), and adds the output dimension 'usage frequency.' It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast it with color-related siblings such as get_selection_colors or export_color_palette.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. Given a large sibling set of color and export tools, the agent must infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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