wordpress_get_theme_mods

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 states the tool 'Get's data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like permissions required, rate limits, whether it returns all settings or a subset, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core action ('Get theme customizer settings') and adds clarifying context in parentheses. Every word contributes value, with no wasted verbiage or structural issues, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. For a read operation with no structured output schema, more information on return values would enhance completeness, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 customizer settings'), with additional context about where these settings are managed ('Appearance → Customize data'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wordpress_get_active_theme' or 'wordpress_get_themes' by focusing on customizer data rather than general theme information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible siblings, keeping it at a 4.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a theme with customizer support), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'wordpress_get_settings' or 'wordpress_get_theme_json'. Without such context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately in complex scenarios.

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