scf_capability_theme_read

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add depth. It hints at return content for each mode (multi-axis scorecard, per-theme evidence posture) but says nothing about pagination behavior, cost of the scorecard mode, or how bands/confidence values are derived. Adequate but thin given annotations already cover safety.

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 lists the five modes, followed by a short imperative on how to choose among them. Nearly every clause earns its place, though 'Pick with method' is terse to the point of being cryptic for a first-time reader.

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, a five-mode read tool needs to convey what comes back per mode; the description does so only at a high level and omits band semantics, evidence confidence meaning, and the fact that org_id originates from scf_list_organizations. It is passable because the method enum compensates, but the description alone is not self-sufficient.

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% and the method enum already spells out each mode's output in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that method drives behavior; it adds no meaning about limit, offset, scope_status, or theme_code beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb (Read) plus resource (capability themes/KSIs) and enumerates the five result shapes: theme list, single theme, scorecard, evidence posture, and mapped controls. That distinguishes it well from sibling read tools such as scf_control_read, though it does not name any sibling outright and leaves the 'KSI' acronym unexplained.

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?

'Pick with method' is the only routing guidance, telling the agent that mode selection is done via the method parameter. It does not say when to prefer this tool over scf_control_read or scf_assessment_read, nor does it warn which modes require theme_code, leaving that to the schema's per-value 'Used by' notes.

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