goodnotes_object_colors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the disclosure that results vary by selection type (text, sticky, ink, shape) and that 'guarded' selections are required. It does not state what happens with an unguarded or stale selectionId, which would have completed the picture.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core action plus scope is front-loaded ahead of the type-dependency and write-exclusion caveats.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the main remaining gap is the return shape: with no output schema, the description should say whether the palette is returned as hex values, named swatches, or ordered entries. It conveys that colors are type-dependent but not the structure of the response.

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 0% for the single selectionId parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by calling the target a 'guarded selection', hinting the ID must come from a selection tool, but it never states the required provenance or format explicitly.

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 and resource ('Read the native color palette') and scopes it to 'the current guarded selection'. The clause 'No custom color/palette writes' explicitly separates it from the sibling write tool (goodnotes_color_object).

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?

Implies when to use it: when you need the palette for an existing guarded selection, and clarifies it is not for setting custom colors. It does not name the write alternative outright, so the agent must infer that goodnotes_color_object handles writes, but the negative guidance is clear.

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