style.get_palette

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing that the response includes 'OKLCH color values and gradient definitions,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe potential limitations (e.g., pagination or large lists), but the core behavior is well-communicated.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, the second adds specific output details. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage modes and key output features. It does not mention search by brand_name or mode filtering, but the schema covers those. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use each parameter, though it could be slightly more detailed about the auto_generate_gradients option.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the description's role is minimal. It does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond referencing 'ID' and 'no params.' The schema already provides detailed descriptions, types, and defaults. The description adds only the high-level mode distinction, which is already implied by the optional id parameter.

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: 'Get brand palette' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes two modes: listing all palettes (no params) and retrieving details for a specific palette (with ID). This sets it apart from sibling tools, which cover different domains like accessibility, audit, design, etc.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'Specify ID for details or no params for list.' This tells the agent exactly how to invoke the tool to get either a list or a single palette. Although it doesn't mention alternatives, no sibling serves the same purpose, making the guidance clear and actionable.

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