wordpress_get_theme_json

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 does without mentioning any behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or output format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, as it doesn't help the agent understand how to interact with it safely or effectively.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 minimal but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'theme.json configuration' entails, the return format, or any contextual details needed for effective use. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be fully 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param details.

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 the resource ('theme.json configuration for block themes (FSE)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_theme_mods' or 'wordpress_get_global_styles', which might also retrieve theme-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as other theme-related get tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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