lemon_palette

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable traits ('small, intentional', 'AA-checked'), but doesn't mention side effects, return format, determinism, or error behavior. These gaps are typical for a generation tool but the description does not fully carry the burden.

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 entire description is two short sentences, with the core action and scope in the first sentence and a crisp usage directive in the second. There's no filler or redundancy; every word contributes.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required enum) but has no output schema and no annotations. The description indicates it returns a 'palette token set' and is AA-checked, but doesn't specify the shape of the returned tokens or any error behavior. For a low-complexity tool this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 100% and both parameters already have descriptive text ('Mood voice for the palette', 'Real constraint...'). The tool description essentially restates that the palette is generated from a mood plus an optional constraint, adding little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear resource ('palette token set'), enumerates the accepted moods, and adds a distinctive trait ('AA-checked'). The focus on palette generation clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lemon_type_spec or lemon_motion_recipe, which address other design aspects.

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 gives explicit temporal guidance with 'Use before styling anything', which tells an agent when in the workflow to call it. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a moderate score.

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