colors_get_scale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('get') with no side effects, but lacks additional context such as return format, permissions, or any potential limitations. This is adequate but not enriched beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the verb, resource, and scope. Every word contributes to comprehension.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells what the tool does and what parameter to provide. However, it does not specify the return format of the source code (e.g., string, file), which could be useful. Still, it is sufficient for most use cases.

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% for the single parameter, and the description does not add meaning beyond that. The schema already explains what scaleName is, with examples. The tool description simply restates the context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 retrieves source code for a specific Radix color scale, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('source code for a color scale'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like colors_get_scale_documentation and colors_list_scales by explicitly focusing on source code rather than documentation or listing.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need source code for a color scale) but provides no explicit exclusions or mentions of alternatives. Sibling tools like colors_get_scale_documentation exist, but the description does not guide the agent to choose between them. Usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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