list_colors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: results are filtered to solid colours unless include_special is set. It says nothing about result cardinality, ordering, or whether 'special' colours are a separate code space, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and return fields. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic style leaves gaps that a few more words could have closed at low cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the default-filter behavior is covered. However, with no annotations and an unexplained 'search' parameter, the definition is adequate but not complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must document both parameters. It explains include_special's effect well, but the 'search' parameter is never mentioned or clarified (matching on code vs name? substring vs exact?), leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (LDraw colours) and even names the returned fields (code, name, hex), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_models/list_parts at a glance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear rather than exceptional.

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 include_special clause implies the default context (solid colours) and when to override it, which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other list_* siblings or any prerequisite/exclusion.

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