dither_gradient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the dithering technique and mentions that index 0 fades to/from transparent. However, it does not clarify if the tool modifies the image in place, whether it respects existing alpha, or any prerequisites like palette existence. It is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 four sentences long, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the core action, it explains the technique and key parameters without unnecessary details. No fluff.

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 complexity and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and parameters. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status) or explicitly state that it modifies the current document, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 coverage is high (91%), but the description adds value by explaining the purpose of from_index/to_index (palette colors), axis (horizontal/vertical/radial), pattern (bayer vs checker), and the special meaning of index 0. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, making parameter usage clearer.

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 it fills a region with an ordered-dither gradient between two palette colors, using specific parameters like from_index, to_index, axis, and pattern. It distinguishes the tool as the 'indexed-color way to blend a smooth-looking transition,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'gradient' or 'blend' tools.

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 context on when to use the tool (for indexed-color images needing a smooth transition via dithering) and explains key parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, which would improve guidance.

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