Get primitive colour ramps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond safety: primitives are theme-invariant and will not adapt to dark mode, and referencing them in product code is disallowed. This is genuinely useful information that the annotations do not provide.

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 only two sentences, the first immediately defines what the tool does, the second packs usage guidance and a critical warning. No filler words, 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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns and key usage constraints. It does not explicitly state the behavior when the ramp parameter is omitted, but the optionality in the schema combined with the description is sufficient for an agent to infer the likely 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'ramp' parameter and its possible values. The tool description does not add any additional parameter syntax or behavior, so the 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'raw colour ramps' are the resource being retrieved, and the purpose is clearly to access primitives behind the semantic layer. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tokens by emphasizing 'behind the semantic layer' and the stated use case of building semantic tokens or re-branding.

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?

It explicitly says when to use ('Use these to build new semantic tokens or to re-brand') and gives a strong exclusion ('Never reference a primitive from product code'), explaining why (does not adapt to dark mode). This provides clear context and a when-not, even though it does not name sibling tools directly.

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