themes_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a read-only tool with no complex inputs, it meets the minimum viable standard but could be more informative about the result structure or operational constraints.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all themes in the library'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'themes_get' or 'themes_get_slide', which might retrieve specific themes or slides, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this exact tool versus others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'themes_get', 'themes_get_slide'), the description lacks explicit instructions on scenarios where retrieving all themes is preferred over filtered or specific retrievals, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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