audit_font_color

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it explicitly states that it does not modify glyph colors by default, that mark_glyphs should only be set when the user explicitly asks, and that omitting master_id means analyzing all masters with worst-verdict-wins logic. This meaningfully discloses side effects and aggregation behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and remains mostly efficient. Minor extras like the RECIPE line and the specific density ratio range add useful context but could be tightened without losing the core message.

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?

The description is complete for a two-parameter audit tool: it covers purpose, grouping logic, side effects, master selection, and usage timing. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable. It could be slightly stronger with explicit guidance on choosing among the many sibling audit/measure tools.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains both parameters: master_id as optional with 'empty = all masters', and mark_glyphs as a conditional flag that colors glyphs by verdict only when explicitly requested. This adds behavioral meaning well beyond the raw schema defaults.

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 a specific operation: a full font color audit that analyzes all letter glyphs grouped into uppercase, lowercase, and figures and evaluates them against expected density ratios. It positions itself as the comprehensive 'is my font's color even?' check, which helps distinguish it from more narrow metrics tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from related siblings like measure_color or compare_color.

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 clear usage context: use before final production to catch weight inconsistencies, and follow a specific recipe for a full consistency audit. It also explains when mark_glyphs should be true, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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