get_color_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' a value, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires the project item to exist, what happens if the item has no color label (returns null or default?), or if it has side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't add context beyond the name.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for a basic getter. However, it lacks context about the expected return value (e.g., an integer index, possibly -1 for none) and any prerequisites. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more detail to be fully complete.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'projectItemId' with description 'The ID of the project item'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details like format or examples.

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 function: 'Gets the color label index of a project item.' It uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('color label index of a project item'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_color_label' which sets the label, and from 'get_clip_properties' which might return broader properties. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the return type or the range of the index, which could be useful.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's a read-only operation, nor does it suggest when to use it (e.g., before setting a color label, or to check the current label). With many sibling tools like 'get_project_item_info' or 'get_item_info', the lack of context makes it harder for an agent to know if this is the right tool.

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