palette_tool

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the three operational modes, which is genuinely useful behavioral information. However, it omits that writing to output_file is a file-system side effect, says nothing about what is returned (color list vs. path), and gives no error behavior for invalid slugs or unreadable images.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the alternate modes and keeps parenthetical algorithm names inline. Every clause carries distinct information 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mode dispatch but leaves the return value, the file-writing side effect, the untagged 'name' parameter, and the extraction-mode choice unexplained. Adequate to start a call, not adequate to call confidently.

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 60% and the description largely restates the schema's own palette description (count/id/slug/path) rather than adding format detail. The most valuable missing semantics — the tradeoff between hybrid_bgm_oklab and oklab_median_cut, and what 'name' affects — are absent from both description and 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 names three concrete operations with specific verbs and resources: extract a palette from an image via named algorithms, fetch a Lospec palette by slug, and convert to .gpl/.hex/.json. An agent can tell this is the palette-domain tool (versus image_convert or export_* siblings), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 mode dispatch is only implicit in the description: an image input selects extraction, a 'lospec:<slug>' value selects fetching, an output path selects conversion. No sentence states 'use this when X, use image_convert instead when Y', and there is no guidance on choosing between hybrid_bgm_oklab and oklab_median_cut.

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