icon_colors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output fields and the default all-apps behavior when ids are omitted, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, nor does it describe permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource and returned fields first, then immediately gives the key parameter behavior. Every clause adds useful information without waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in depth. For a single optional parameter, it covers the key omission behavior but omits what the ids represent and does not clarify read-only behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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%, and the single parameter has no schema-level explanation. The description compensates meaningfully by explaining that omitting ids returns every app, which clarifies the parameter's filtering role. It still does not specify what format the ids should be in.

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 identifies the resource and returned attributes: dominant icon color per app, including family, background, hex, and hue. It lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from siblings like get_icons or sort_by_color, but the color-specific purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Omit ids for every app' provides a concrete usage rule for the only parameter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_icons, sort_by_color, or find_apps, leaving usage largely implied.

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