Listar colores semánticos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered by structure. The description adds useful context that the tool returns valid values for certain parameters and that hex values are also accepted as an alternative. It doesn't describe return format (list shape, structure) but with no output schema and a read-only, idempotent tool, this is moderate coverage.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose, the parameter fields where the values apply, and the hex fallback. Zero wasted words. The inclusion of the parenthetical about hex acceptance is valuable because it prevents unnecessary lookup calls when a user already has a hex value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup tool with sibling similar tools like list_icons/list_fonts, this description is complete. It explains what values are returned for, where they apply, and when hex bypasses the need for this tool. The only minor gap is not describing the exact format of the returned list, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains the tool involves no input and describes the applicability of outputs to specific param names. No parameter documentation burden exists since there are no parameters to document.

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 returns accepted semantic color names used in specific fields ('color', 'lineColor', 'dotColor') and that hex values are also accepted. The verb+resource ('Devuelve los nombres de color semántico') is specific, and while there's no explicit sibling differentiation, the 'list_colors' name and context (`list_icons`, `list_fonts`, etc.) make it clear this is the color-listing tool.

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 this is used to look up valid color values before passing them to color-related parameters in diagram tools. The sibling tools (create_diagram, edit_diagram) would consume these colors, giving implied context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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