Get primitive colour ramps

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: primitives do not change between themes and therefore will not adapt to dark mode. This explains a key limitation of the data returned and helps the agent understand why these values should not be used directly in product code.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: the first defines what the tool returns, the second states when to use it, and the third warns against misuse. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a critical constraint. It does not explicitly state what happens if the optional ramp parameter is omitted, but the schema's description of the parameter and the overall simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap rather than a significant omission.

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% for the single optional 'ramp' parameter, and the schema already lists the valid ramp names. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema fully documents the parameter. This matches the baseline for 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns 'raw colour ramps behind the semantic layer'. It clearly differentiates this from semantic-token tools by explaining that primitives are the underlying layer used to build semantic tokens, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_tokens and get_foundation.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use these to build new semantic tokens or to re-brand.' It also gives a strong when-not-to-use rule: never reference a primitive from product code because it won't adapt to dark mode. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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