gif_palette

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it is a read-only analysis tool that reports specific metrics (sort order, duplicates, etc.). No side effects or contradictions are noted, and the description sufficiently informs the agent of expected behavior.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and details. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence provides value.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete. It lists what the report covers (color distribution, luminance profile, etc.), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Minor omission: it does not specify the output format (e.g., text report), but this is not critical.

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 sole parameter 'file_path' is described in the schema as 'Path to GIF image file'. The description adds no further semantics beyond this, and schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: analyzing the GIF global color table for steganographic indicators. It specifies what it reports (sort order, duplicate entries, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gif_palette_lsb by focusing on global table analysis.

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 implies usage for steganographic analysis of GIF color tables but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when-not' conditions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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