make_ramp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the generative behavior in useful detail (even lightness steps, warm-leaning lights, cool shadows, chroma tapering at both ends). However, it says nothing about whether a ramp is persisted as an asset, whether it mutates existing material, determinism, or what gets returned, which are the questions an agent needs answered for a mutation-capable tool.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most distinctive fact (the output type) comes first. The terseness is a mild liability rather than verbosity, since the poetic phrasing crowds out the missing verb and parameter guidance.

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?

Four parameters at 0% schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema: the description should carry the load and instead covers only aesthetic intent. An agent still cannot determine parameter meanings, defaults behavior, or the return shape before calling.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: no parameter name (base, steps, contrast, hue_shift) is mentioned or explained. At best, 'even lightness steps', 'hue leaning warm… cool' and 'chroma tapering' hint at what steps, hue_shift and contrast conceptually control, but the mapping and valid ranges are left entirely to inference.

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 the concrete output ('a shading ramp around one colour') and its defining properties (OKLCh, darkest first, even lightness steps), so an agent can tell what it produces. It never states an explicit verb ('generates'/'returns') and gives no differentiation from siblings such as pixelize or apply, so it falls short of a 5.

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 reach for this tool versus alternatives like pixelize or apply, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implicit signal is that it operates on 'one colour', which an agent must infer.

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