Space dossier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is fully covered. The description's contribution is the payload inventory and one useful source note ('as color-space.io shows it', provenance year/author), but since an output schema exists, the field enumeration largely restates structured data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource scope, so there is no filler. However, the long comma-separated field inventory is largely redundant against the output schema and does not earn its place as strongly as a shorter scope statement would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile — the description is therefore sufficient to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance to sibling tools, which is a completeness shortfall rather than a correctness one.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already supplies the id format and concrete examples ('rgb', 'oklch', 'lab', ...) plus the pointer to the `spaces` tool. The description adds no additional meaning about the `name` argument, so the 3 baseline for high-coverage schemas 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?

The label 'dossier of one color space' specifically names the resource and its singular scope, and the enumerated field list (channels, illuminant, family, neighbours) makes clear this is a metadata lookup, not a conversion or listing. It never names the sibling `spaces` (which lists all 221) or `convert`, so differentiation must be inferred from 'one color space'. No explicit verb ('returns', 'describes') appears, but the noun phrase is specific enough to identify the resource.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing guidance. It never mentions `spaces` (the bulk lister) or `convert` (which acts on spaces), even though those are the obvious alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the singular scope of the resource.

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