wordpress_get_active_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns structured data (e.g., theme name, version, path), or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical context about permissions, output format, or error conditions.

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 with the core purpose and efficiently communicates what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values, authentication needs, or error handling. For a basic read tool, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial-and-error.

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% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the parameter aspect, 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 'Get the currently active theme' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (active theme), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_themes' or 'wordpress_get_themes_detailed', which would require a more specific scope statement to earn a 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 like 'wordpress_get_themes' (which might list all themes) or 'wordpress_theme_exists' (which might check for a specific theme). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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