emotional_palette

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it reads transitions, requires spaces in actual traversal order, and is not applicable to work evaluation. It does not describe output behavior, but an output schema is present and covers that 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?

Three short sentences deliver the function, usage context, parameter constraint, and a negative case. The core behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, experiential target, and an explicit non-use case. No critical information needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by insisting spaces be in actual movement order rather than any ordering, and by framing the target as the 'experience goal' in the examples. This modestly enhances the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: it 'reads the atmosphere transition' across spaces in sequence. It also bounds the tool's scope with concrete use cases and explicitly excludes work evaluation, which differentiates it from siblings like answer_why.

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 gives clear when-to-use conditions: when there is a movement order and an experiential goal, with examples like 'compression to release'. It also states a when-not condition for artwork evaluation, though it only implicitly points to the sibling answer_why rather than naming an alternative tool explicitly.

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