scf_get_capability_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns and does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence (16 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description specifies what the tool returns but does not cover return format, prerequisites (e.g., valid theme_code), or error conditions. For a simple retrieval tool, the description is adequate but could be more complete in a complex context with no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already explain parameter origins (e.g., obtain from scf_list_organizations). No extra guidance on parameter values or formats.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'a single capability theme (KSI)', and the detailed output: full posture, multi-axis scores, band, and legacy posture_percentage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_list_capability_themes (list all) and scf_get_capability_theme_scorecard (scorecard version).

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 implies usage for retrieving a single capability theme's full details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scf_get_capability_theme_scorecard or scf_list_capability_themes). No 'when-not' or alternative guidance is provided.

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