palette_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses WCAG version, threshold, and output details (ratio, pass/fail, thin-margin alerts). It is implied to be read-only with no side effects, though not explicitly stated.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and threshold, then details output specifics.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose, output, and a key constraint (before screens). For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, it is nearly complete, though it could mention that only hex colors are accepted (already in schema).

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. However, it only discusses output; it does not explain input structure beyond what the schema already defines (hex patterns, name field). The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 checks color pairs against WCAG 2.2 AA (4.5:1) and reports exact ratio, pass/fail, and thin-margin passes. It specifies an early design use case ('before any screens exist'), distinguishing it from any potential screen-related tools.

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 implies use during design pre-implementation ('before any screens exist') and differentiates from screen_critique by focus on raw color pairs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though no closely related siblings exist.

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