get_colors

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns which color each kingdom currently uses and specifies the palette range (60 options, 0-59). This conveys the core read-only behavior and the scope of results. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, 'Get' implies a non-mutating operation, and the provided details are sufficient for safe use.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Get the full palette'), followed by the return behavior and a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: it states the resource, the range, the return content, and the appropriate usage context. There is nothing missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no properties). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and it adds value by clarifying the range of available colors, which is not present in the schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full palette of kingdom colors', and explains the purpose: to see which color each kingdom uses so the agent can pick a non-conflicting color. It also differentiates from the sibling tool change_color by saying 'Use this before change_color', making its role unambiguous.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'Use this before change_color.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool (as a prerequisite) and why (to avoid color conflicts). No alternatives are needed because change_color is the only related tool, and this is clearly a prerequisite step.

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