wordpress_get_themes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'all installed themes' defines the scope. However, the description does not mention return format, ordering, or any potential side effects. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich, as it relies on the agent to infer typical behavior of a 'get' operation.

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 sentence of six words: 'Get all installed WordPress themes'. It is front-loaded, direct, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning. This is exemplary 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?

The tool is very simple: no parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose. The description fully explains what the tool does and is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. While it does not describe the return structure, the simplicity and lack of ambiguity make this acceptable. It is complete enough for the intended task.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to describe, which is appropriate.

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 all installed WordPress themes' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('installed WordPress themes'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like wordpress_get_themes_detailed (which implies more details) and wordpress_get_active_theme (singular). The scope is unambiguous and directly matches the tool name.

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 clear context: this tool retrieves all installed themes. It implicitly tells an agent to use it when a list of installed themes is needed. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the simplicity of the tool and the phrase 'all installed' make the usage context obvious. No prerequisites or competing tools are referenced, but none are necessary for such a straightforward read operation.

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