color_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Each unique parameter value gets assigned a distinct color,' which hints at output behavior, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, view-specific effects, or error handling. For a visual mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting flow.

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 the complexity of a visual mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., whether coloring is temporary), error cases, or output format. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'parameter value' is used for grouping and coloring. It doesn't explain interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'customColors' overrides default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Color elements in the current view based on a category and parameter value.' It specifies the verb ('color'), resource ('elements'), and mechanism ('based on a category and parameter value'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'tag_all_walls', which might also involve visual modifications.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active view), exclusions (e.g., not for 3D views), or comparisons to siblings like 'tag_all_walls' for labeling. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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