convert_color

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses accepted input formats, the optional 'to' parameter, and the conditional output (single format or all). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a conversion tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, no filler. First sentence states the core action. Second sentence details parameters and output. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers input types, optional parameter, and output behavior. It lacks mention of error handling, but for a color conversion tool this is likely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: it explains that 'color' accepts hex, CSS name, RNV brand name, or saved-palette reference, and that 'to' can be one of hex/rgb/hsv/hsl/lab or null to return all formats. This adds essential meaning beyond the plain schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert a color between formats.' It specifies the input types (hex, CSS name, RNV brand name, saved-palette reference) and the output behavior depending on the 'to' parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like color_difference or contrast_check.

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 states when to use the tool (when converting colors) and explains the optional 'to' parameter for output format. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, though the context makes it clear.

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