palette_harmony_implGenerate an OKLCH harmony palette from a seed color across seven rules and light or dark themes for consistent front-end color systems.
Generate an OKLCH harmony palette from a seed color (7 rules x light/dark).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | Yes | ||
| mode | No | analogous | |
| theme | No | light |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 discloses that output is an OKLCH harmony palette with 7 rules across light/dark, but does not state valid mode values, whether the seed accepts any color format, error behavior, or side effects.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action, output format, and input source with zero filler.
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 no explanation, but the description omits the mode enum vocabulary and any guidance distinguishing this tool from its twelve siblings. Adequate but incomplete for a generation tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'seed color' maps to base, '7 rules' hints at mode values, and 'light/dark' explains theme. However, it never enumerates the 7 rule names, so mode remains guesswork.
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 (Generate) and resource (OKLCH harmony palette) scoped to a seed color, which clearly separates it from score/visualize/contrast siblings. It does not name a specific sibling or exclusion, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no indication of how this harmony generation differs from the many other palette_* tools it sits beside. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.