wordpress_get_style_variations

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, how results are formatted (e.g., JSON array), or if there are rate limits. It lacks details about what 'style variations' actually returns (e.g., color schemes, typography settings).

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. Every word ('Get', 'theme style variations', 'block themes') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'style variations' are in WordPress context, how results are structured, or provide any behavioral context. While concise, it lacks the necessary detail for an agent to use this tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'stylesheet', and the tool description provides no information about this parameter. The agent must guess what 'stylesheet' means (e.g., theme slug, directory name, file path) and how to format it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter meaning or usage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('theme style variations for block themes'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wordpress_get_themes' or 'wordpress_get_theme_json' by focusing specifically on style variations rather than general theme data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings beyond the naming convention.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a block theme), context for usage, or comparison to other theme-related tools like 'wordpress_get_theme_json' or 'wordpress_get_theme_mods'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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