get_available_themes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires an open presentation, returns a specific format (e.g., list of theme names or objects), or has any side effects. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear for a tool in a presentation context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available themes' means in context (e.g., system defaults vs. presentation-specific), the return format, or dependencies. For a tool in a presentation suite with many siblings, more context would help the agent use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters are required, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

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 'Get list of available themes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('available themes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'set_presentation_theme' or 'get_available_layouts', but the specificity of 'themes' provides some implicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a presentation must be open), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'get_available_layouts' or explain its role in the workflow (e.g., for selecting themes before applying them).

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