get_shade_palette

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses output style ('one-step-darker,' 'No soft gradients') and sequencing, but it doesn't state whether the tool reads from current context or mutates anything; for a getter the risk is low, but the input source is unstated.

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 three short lines, front-loads the core formula, and uses a concrete example rather than prose. Every sentence contributes either purpose, usage, or an exclusion, with no filler.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description supplies the key workflow context: after plan_shading and before paint_*. The only notable gap is that the source of the 'local flat color' input is left implicit, but the workflow placement makes it reasonably inferable.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter names or descriptions to augment; the 0-param baseline is 4. The description's 'Local flat color →' hints at implicit state-based input, but no parameter-level semantics are needed.

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 states a concrete transformation ('Local flat color → one-step-darker shadow roles') and names the domain ('style-lock shading'), so an agent can infer it returns shade roles and hex values. It is distinguishable from shading-plan getters by its reference to paint_* and 'after plan_shading,' though it does not explicitly say 'returns a 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to consume the output: 'Use these roles / hex values with paint_* after plan_shading.' The 'No soft gradients' line adds an exclusion, but no alternative tool is named for cases where this palette is unsuitable.

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