Suggest companion colors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the actual computation — fixed hue offsets and a constant luminance of 40 — which tells the agent exactly what character of result to expect. It stops short of stating how many swatches come back or in what color format.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads what the tool returns and then parenthetically defines each hue family with its offset. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return semantics: three hue families at a fixed luminance. What remains unstated is the response shape — count of swatches, color encoding, and whether the base color is included.

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% but the sole parameter's schema text is just 'Base color.', which is itself thin. The description implies the parameter is a hue source but does not specify the accepted color notation (hex, name, RGB) or how lightness/saturation of the input affects the result. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema nominally covers the parameter.

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 names the resource (suggested-color swatches) and precisely defines what is computed: analogous (±60), triadic (±120) and complementary hues of a base color. That is far more specific than the name 'suggest_colors'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like generate_palette or luminance_scale, which could plausibly return overlapping hue rotations.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus generate_palette, luminance_scale, or adjust_shade, all of which operate on color. The agent must infer the choice from the description's math alone. No exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios are given.

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