Check a color palette for colorblind-safety

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it names the exact simulations run (protanopia, deuteranopia, tritanopia) and the output behavior (flags collapsing pairs). It does not detail the return format or severity scoring, but the mechanism of analysis is unusually well disclosed for a tool without annotations.

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 tight sentences: the first states the purpose, the second describes the mechanism and output, and a final clause bounds scope. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or cruft.

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 one required parameter fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough for correct invocation: what it checks, how, and what the results mean. The absence of return-value details is a minor gap for a screening tool but not a blocker.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond implying that colors are checked as a group. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema completely handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb (check) and resource (a set of colors), and names the exact property it evaluates: distinguishability under color-vision deficiency. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like checkContrast (which measures luminance contrast, not CVD) by naming the simulations it runs.

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 gives clear context for use (screening a palette for colorblind safety) and explicitly bounds the scope with 'not a legal accessibility (ADA/WCAG) audit,' which routes users needing compliance to checkContrast or another sibling. It lacks an explicit alternative tool recommendation, but the boundary is well-communicated.

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