util_cbab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary coloring action but fails to mention that it recolors the entire structure unless a selection is specified, or that it overrides existing colors. No side effects or limitations are disclosed, leaving the agent unaware of the tool's full impact.

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 a single short sentence, efficiently conveying the core action. The parenthetical clarification is helpful, though the wording is slightly awkward. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with minimal parameters.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of the action but lacks context about selection scope, effect on existing colors, and how it fits into the broader set of color utilities. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description could be more complete by referencing the selection parameter or the standard color scheme.

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% coverage for the single 'selection' parameter, including its default value and description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 colors atoms with carbons in slate blue, using the phrase 'Colors by atom, slate carbons.' This specifies a verb, resource, and specific color choice, distinguishing it from other color-by-atom siblings that likely use different carbon colors. However, it could be more explicit about the overall scheme (e.g., standard element colors with modified carbon).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to other color tools like 'color', 'util_cbc', or 'util_chainbow'. It does not mention selection behavior or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for choosing this over alternatives.

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