List palettes

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses that the data is 'built-in curated' — i.e. a fixed, read-only catalog — and what fields come back (roles, hex colors). It does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects or whether the list can change, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two short sentences: the first defines the tool and its output, the second gives actionable downstream guidance. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free enumeration tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: it says what is listed, what each entry carries, and how to use the result. No gaps remain that would block a correct call.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs because there are none, and the only naming it discusses (`name`) refers to a field in the returned data, not an argument.

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?

States a specific verb (list), a specific resource (built-in curated pixel-art palettes), and what each entry contains (roles and hex colors). That distinguishes it clearly from sprite_palette, which applies a palette rather than enumerating them.

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 second sentence tells the agent what to do with the returned `name` (pass it to sprite_new_project or sprite_palette), which places the tool in the workflow. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or a named alternative for enumeration, so it does not reach 5.

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