Create hue-shifted dark-to-light color ramps for pixel art. Define a base color and optional steps or lightness range to generate a palette.
Generate a hue-shifted dark-to-light pixel-art color ramp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | ||
| base_color | Yes | ||
| lightness_range | No | ||
| hue_shift_degrees | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies the tool shifts hue and creates a dark-to-light ramp, but does not specify whether it returns an array, modifies a canvas, or has side effects. It also omits constraints like step limits or how parameters interact, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 with no fluff, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful. While front-loading is fine, the lack of substance reduces its effectiveness.
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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or invocation context. An agent would be guessing about how to use this tool correctly, especially with zero schema coverage in the description.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'hue-shifted' and 'dark-to-light', which loosely map to hue_shift_degrees and lightness_range, but it does not explicitly describe base_color, steps, or the meaning of numeric ranges. An agent cannot infer the correct usage from this text.
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 a specific action ('Generate') and a specific resource ('pixel-art color ramp'), with qualifiers 'hue-shifted' and 'dark-to-light' that give a precise sense of the output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like harmonize_asset_palette or extract_palette, though none are directly equivalent.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between this and other palette/color tools. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.