palette

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that colors are sampled with lighting so highlights and shadows appear as separate entries, and warns that the base material color is typically the most frequent mid-tone rather than the lightest or darkest. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior that prevents misreading results. It stops short of covering error cases or access constraints.

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 purpose and output format are front-loaded, followed by a behavioral caveat, then a compact parameter block. Every line earns its place, with only minor formatting irregularity from the embedded line break.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the meaning of results, and all parameters. It does not describe response structure (ordering of colors, field names for the linear/sRGB components) or failure modes, but it names the output formats, which is adequate.

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 compensate and it does for all four parameters: view syntax including slices ('path|N', 'path|0') and crop rectangles ('path|x1,y1,x2,y2'), the 1..12 range for colors (absent from the schema), the meaning of whole=true, and method's relationship to silhouette. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 specific operation — extracting the object's main colors for materials — and names the output forms (HEX, sRGB 0..1, linear 0..1, area share). It also clarifies the semantics of the result (lighting included; base color is the most frequent mid-tone). Sibling differentiation is only partial, limited to a reference to silhouette for the method parameter, but the verb+resource 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 'whole' note implies when to include background, and 'method' is delegated to silhouette ('как в silhouette'), which gives the agent a cross-reference. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose palette over siblings like silhouette or compare, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage must be inferred.

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