list_available_themes

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. The description only states the action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what '主题样式' (theme styles) entails, the format of the returned data, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns a list of themes, more details on the output structure or usage context would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately does not mention any. A baseline of 4 is given as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 ('列出所有可用的' - list all available) and resource ('主题样式' - theme styles), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_markdown_to_card' or 'generate_card_image', which are unrelated operations, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 or in what context it should be applied. It simply states what it does without any usage instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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