Get Separation Info

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. The description adds what is returned (plate types plus usage counts), but says nothing about output format, cost, or scope limits, which keeps it at an adequate rather than rich level.

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 that names the operation and then enumerates the returned data. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter with no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so at a high level (process plates, spot plates, usage counts). Only the exact return shape and any pagination/limits are unstated, which is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the call is context-driven (operates on the current document) without needing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (color separation information) and enumerates the returned content: CMYK process plates and spot color plates with usage counts. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_colors (color inventory) and get_overprint_info (overprint settings), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to or away from related siblings such as get_colors, get_overprint_info, or preflight_check. Usage is only inferable from the content it returns; an agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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