palette_semantic_implGenerate color-blind-safe categorical chart palettes with interleaved luminance and evenly spread hues, verified for at least 0.08 separation under deuteranopia.
Color-blind-safe categorical colors for charts: interleaved luminance ramp + evenly spread hues, verified >=0.08 min separation under deuteranopia.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| count | No |
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral guarantee — verified >=0.08 minimum separation under deuteranopia — and the generation strategy, which is more than nothing. But it says nothing about determinism, whether output ordering is stable, or how the palette relates to the supplied base color.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the output and its audience, with no filler. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the algorithm detail arguably crowds out the more useful usage and parameter guidance.
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 explained, and the tool is a stateless two-parameter computation. Still, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage routing among twelve siblings, an agent cannot confidently decide when to call this or what to pass for 'base'.
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 and it does not: neither 'base' nor 'count' is mentioned. The meaning of 'base' (a seed color? a named palette? a hex string?) is entirely opaque, and 'count' is only weakly implied by the notion of a categorical set.
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 names a specific output — color-blind-safe categorical colors for charts — and characterizes it via its construction method (interleaved luminance ramp + evenly spread hues). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as palette_blind_impl or palette_harmony_impl, which plausibly produce overlapping outputs.
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 phrase 'for charts' hints at a use case, but there is no statement of when to pick this tool over palette_blind_impl, palette_harmony_impl, or the other eleven siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.