shopify_list_theme_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured metadata. The description adds the scoping behavior and the unusual requirement that effect must be read and verified by Spring. It does not mention pagination, defaults, or authentication constraints, but the existing annotations lower the burden.

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 purpose is front-loaded in two clear sentences, and the Args block is compact and scannable. Some platform parameters add noise, and approval_ref is slightly off-topic for a read-only operation, but the structure remains efficient.

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 definition covers every parameter and the listing scope, and an output schema exists for return values. It lacks guidance for choosing among the many Shopify list/get siblings, leaves the theme_id requiredness conflict unresolved, and omits pagination or default-theme behavior. For an 8-param tool with several ambiguous sibling tools, these are meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it explains theme_id format, gives wildcard examples for filenames, and defines all generated platform parameters. However, it marks theme_id as required while the schema lists only effect as required and gives theme_id a null default, creating conflicting requiredness signals.

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 verb and resource: 'List the filenames in a theme' and enumerates relevant directories. It distinguishes the tool from theme-mutation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like shopify_get_theme_files or shopify_list_files.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shopify_get_theme_files, shopify_list_files, or shopify_get_theme. The wildcard-filter support implies scoped listing use, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction is provided.

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