get_theme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it largely does: it discloses the returned fields and adds a real behavioral constraint, 'Never hand-write the selector,' plus the effect of $standalone: false on the emitted :root. It does not state failure behavior for an unknown theme name or confirm freshness/caching, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the authoring constraint. The @mixin signature detail is arguably closer to get_mixin's territory, but it directly explains how $standalone shapes the output, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it names all four returned components. For a single-parameter read tool that is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the name parameter is documented in-schema with concrete examples ('boilerplate', 'terminal', 'press', 'sketchbook-dark'). The description adds no naming syntax or validation rules beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Return one theme') and enumerates exactly what comes back: token assignments, raw SCSS body, light-dark() support flag, and source path. That payload signature distinguishes it immediately from list_themes and search_themes, which return collections.

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: 'Return one theme' plus a required name parameter makes retrieval of a single theme self-evident, and the authoring note hints at when $standalone matters. However, it never explicitly says to use this instead of list_themes/search_themes when looking for a single known theme, nor what happens if the name does not exist.

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