color_get_lut

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating safety, the description adds the useful detail that it returns an empty string when no LUT is applied. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid node indices or missing items, which would be valuable context beyond the annotation.

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 with no redundant words. It delivers the essential information efficiently and front-loads the verb and object clearly.

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 it is a simple read-only getter with complete parameter descriptions and an output schema, the description captures the core return behavior (path or empty string). It is complete enough for its complexity, though it could optionally mention edge-case behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it just references 'a specific node' generically. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Return the LUT file path') and a clear scope ('applied to a specific node'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like color_set_lut (which sets) and color_export_lut (which exports), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies its usage as a getter for a specific node's LUT path, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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