get_color_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is JSON and operates on a flattened frame, but doesn't mention side effects (likely none) or performance expectations. Since it's a read operation, the lack of explicit non-destructive hint is notable.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the essential action and output without any waste, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'color usage statistics' includes (e.g., counts, percentages, top colors), nor does it clarify parameter semantics. For a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 for what parameters like 'top' and 'frame_index' mean. The description doesn't mention that 'top' likely limits the number of colors returned, nor that 'frame_index' selects which frame. The schema has defaults but no descriptions, so the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw names.

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 'Return JSON color usage statistics for one flattened frame' clearly states it returns color statistics for a frame, which is specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_palette' or 'extract_palette' which could be related to color analysis, so it's not immediately distinct.

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 on when to use this over other color-related tools. The description says 'flattened frame' but doesn't explain why a user would choose this over get_palette or similar tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred conditions.

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