extract_palette

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the main action and optional swatch save, but does not describe the return value (likely a hex list), error handling, supported image formats, or any side effects beyond optional file writing. The absence of output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 a clear first-line summary, a short usage context, and a bulleted args list. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 extraction tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic functionality and parameter meaning. However, it is missing explicit details about the return value, input format requirements, and error states. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining each parameter: src (input image path), colors (number of colors), and swatch (path for PNG save). However, it omits details like valid ranges for colors, default behavior (16 colors), and doesn't clarify that swatch is optional despite default null. Still, it adds meaning beyond parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool extracts a representative palette (hex list) from an image and optionally saves a swatch PNG. It distinguishes from siblings like build_palette or export_palette by specifying the image source and linking to snap_to_palette.

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 explains that the extracted palette can be used as a basis for snap_to_palette to unify assets, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like build_palette or quantize_palette.

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