aseprite_get_palette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output is hex colours (useful), but says nothing about whether it reads the saved file or the in-memory document state, what happens with no document open, or that it is strictly non-mutating. For an unannotated tool this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word earns its place and the resource and return format are stated up front.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent the operation and the shape of the result (hex colours), and the schema fully covers the input. Only the missing behavioral context keeps it from a 5.

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 the 'document' parameter is fully documented in the schema (short name, relative path, absolute path, omit-for-active). The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the document's current palette') plus the output format ('as hex colours'), so the agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. set_palette, load_palette, pick_color), leaving some differentiation to inference, but the purpose itself 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from the closely related siblings (set_palette, load_palette, pick_color, quantize_palette). The agent can only infer it is a read operation from the verb 'List'.

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