design_check_palette_contrast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks contrasts and flags pairs below a threshold, which implies a non-mutating analysis, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or the shape of the results beyond the word “flags.”

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and the flagging behavior are front-loaded and immediately clear.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output behavior. It still omits when-to-use alternatives and explicit safety details, which matter more because no annotations are provided.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions a threshold concept but adds no syntax, default value, or additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for `colors` and `threshold`.

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 states a specific verb (Check), resource (all pairwise contrasts in a color palette), and scope (flags pairs below threshold). It distinguishes palette-level checking from a single contrast check by implication, but does not explicitly name the sibling design_check_contrast to clarify the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied: this is for validating contrast across a palette. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as design_check_contrast or design_suggest_accessible_color.

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