wordpress_get_theme_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'block theme templates' entails (e.g., returns all templates or filtered). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get theme templates') and adds clarifying detail ('block theme templates from WordPress API') concisely, making it easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation that might return complex data (templates), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, scope (e.g., all templates or active theme only), or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool in a rich sibling set, more context is warranted.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 templates'), specifying they are 'block theme templates from WordPress API'. This distinguishes it from generic template tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'wordpress_get_template_parts' or 'wordpress_get_block_template' beyond the 'theme' focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., active theme), or compare it to sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_template_parts' or 'wordpress_get_block_template', leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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