utils_get_colors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns cached vs. live data, or what format the colors are returned in (hex codes, names, etc.). The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what the return value contains (just colors? with IDs? metadata?) or how the colors relate to the mentioned resources. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail about the response format would be helpful.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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 resource ('available colors for projects, labels, filters in Todoist'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on color retrieval rather than task/project management operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that might also return color information indirectly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether colors are needed for UI display, configuration purposes, or if there are other ways to obtain color information through sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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