Get Colors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds only the 'used in the document' scoping qualifier; it does not mention that output composition varies by the three include flags or note that swatches may be returned even when unused.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core verb and scope appear immediately, which is ideal for a low-complexity read tool.

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 simple three-optional-flag read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about what the return payload contains and how the include flags shape it. Given the absence of an output schema, a sentence about the return shape would have been warranted.

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 100%, so all three boolean flags (include_swatches, include_diagnostics, include_used_colors) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description mentions 'color information' generically but does not explain the print-diagnostics or swatch toggles, so it adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (color information) with a clear scope qualifier ('used in the document'), so an agent knows it returns document color data rather than swatch management. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like manage_swatches, list_graphic_styles, check_contrast, or replace_color.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over manage_swatches, list_graphic_styles, or check_contrast, nor any exclusion such as 'swatches only, not used colors'. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.

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