list_theme_wallpapers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds the theme-scoping behavior but omits what happens if the theme is invalid, whether results include file paths, or any ordering/caching behavior.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and scope are immediately clear.

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 simple list tool with one fully documented parameter and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention that it returns file paths or what an empty theme yields, but those are minor gaps.

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 documented as 'Theme name'. The description's 'for a specific theme' merely restates this without adding format, validation, or example details.

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?

Description states a specific verb (List) and resource (wallpaper files) scoped to a theme. It implicitly distinguishes from list_wallpapers and list_themes by the 'for a specific theme' scope, but does not name the sibling alternatives 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?

The requirement of a 'theme' parameter implies usage when a theme is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like list_wallpapers.

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