get_selection_colors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or output format. For a getter tool, it is implicit that it is read-only, but explicit confirmation would be helpful. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. While it conveys the core purpose, it omits important context such as output format (e.g., hex values, color types), whether duplicates are removed, and any performance implications. The completeness is adequate but leaves 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?

The tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100% with 0 parameters). While the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, the description could add value by specifying what 'colors' includes (e.g., fills, strokes, effects). Without that, it remains vague, warranting a slight reduction to 3.

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 'Extract all colors used in the current selection' clearly states the action (extract) and resource (colors used in the current selection). It is specific and distinct from sibling color tools like color_extract or color_palette_generate, which operate on different scopes or produce different outputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many color-related sibling tools, an agent would benefit from knowing, for example, to use this for selection-specific extraction versus other tools for broader palette generation. No such direction is given.

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