Compare spectrum templates' sRGB color swatches across standard observers beside each spectrum to assess nebular colorimetry.
Side-by-side sRGB swatches of each template's colour under each observer, next to its spectrum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reddened | No | Apply each template's typical E(B-V). | |
| observers | No | Standard observers to compare; default CIE 1931 2° and CIE 1964 10°. | |
| templates | No | Template keys from list_spectrum_templates. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does describe the output shape (swatches next to spectrum), implying a read-only rendering operation, but never confirms safety, side effects, or what the rendered output actually looks like beyond the phrase.
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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and leads with the deliverable. It is efficient, though it is so terse it leaves gaps filled only by the schema.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the returned artifact and behaviour. It conveys the gist of the visual output but leaves return format, safety, and alternative-tool routing to inference.
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%, so all three parameters (reddened, observers, templates) are already documented in the schema. The description mirrors the schemas' meaning (templates' colour under observers) without adding format or behavioural detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: side-by-side sRGB swatches of templates' colours under observers, plus spectra. This is distinguishable from siblings like nebula_color or plot_chromaticity_comparison, though it never names those alternatives to differentiate explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the description's reference to 'template's colour under each observer' hints at comparison use, and the template schema references list_spectrum_templates as the source of keys. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.