coeus_pixel_palette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only operations ('list or inspect') but doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it requires no special permissions. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant phrasing.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It doesn't specify the return format, but with no output schema, that may be acceptable. It also doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple list/inspect utility, these are minor gaps.

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 parameter 'name' is documented. The description adds meaning by indicating that providing 'name' inspects a specific palette while omitting it lists all, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Name' description. This clarifies the parameter's conditional role.

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 tool's function: 'List or inspect bundled pixel-art palettes'. It identifies the resource (bundled pixel-art palettes) and the actions (list or inspect), making it distinguishable from sibling pixel-art tools like generate, set, edit, and find. However, it doesn't explicitly name a specific sibling or contrast itself, so a slight deduction from a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over other pixel-art tools, nor does it exclude cases. The description simply states what it does without context on selection.

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