color_get_cdl

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation as non-destructive, and the description adds useful scoping with 'current node'. It does not disclose error behavior or return format, but that is partly covered by the output schema and the read-only annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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, focused sentence that uses a clear subject-action-object structure. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read operation with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies the source and scope ('timeline item's current node'), and missing details like node selection semantics are minor given the structured metadata.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond aligning 'timeline item' with item_name, so the baseline score applies.

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 a read action on ASC CDL values, scoped to a timeline item's current node. It distinguishes from setters like color_set_cdl by using 'Read' and from broader operations like cdl_read_all via the 'current node' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name 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 verb 'Read' implies usage for retrieving current CDL values, and the scoping to a timeline item's current node provides context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or comparison with sibling tools, leaving selection to inference.

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