cocos_derive_theme_from_seed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is a generator (not destructive), uses HSL math for color computation, includes fixed colors for success/warn/danger, and returns a dict ready for another tool. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance, or rate limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for algorithm details and includes a code example, but could be slightly more concise by reducing some explanatory text (e.g., 'severity readability trumps brand consistency').

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior. It explains the return format and integration with other tools. However, it lacks details on error cases or validation rules for 'seed_hex'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'seed_hex' is described as 'the game's primary/brand color', and 'mode' is explained as 'dark' or 'light' with a default of 'dark'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a coherent UI palette from one brand color' with specific details about the algorithm (HSL math) and output format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cocos_set_ui_theme' by focusing on derivation rather than application.

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 explicit usage guidance: it includes a 'Typical use' example with code, explains when to use it (to create a palette from a seed color), and mentions integration with 'cocos_set_ui_theme'. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for fixed themes or manual color specification).

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