color_extract

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('extract') and organizes results. However, it does not detail return format, potential limitations, or whether it modifies the document. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 concisely conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficient with no redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely adequate. It explains the core functionality. However, it could explicitly mention the output structure or any constraints (e.g., large frames) for full completeness.

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 input schema has one parameter 'nodeId' described as 'Root node', which is vague. The tool description adds that it works on a 'frame', providing context for the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds some meaning, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extracts all unique colors from a frame and organizes them by usage frequency. The verb 'extract' and resource 'colors from a frame' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like color_palette_generate or export_color_palette.

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 tool versus alternatives such as get_selection_colors or color_palette_generate. The description does not provide context for appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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