wordpress_list_theme_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what format the output takes, or whether it includes hidden files. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in transparency.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 that this tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. A simple 'list files' description doesn't provide enough context for a tool with two required parameters that are completely undocumented elsewhere. The description should explain parameter usage, output format, and behavioral constraints given the lack of structured documentation.

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, meaning neither parameter ('theme' or 'recursive') has any documentation in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what these parameters mean - it doesn't clarify what format 'theme' should be in (slug, name, path?) or what 'recursive' actually does (list subdirectories?). With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide parameter semantics but fails to do so.

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 ('List all files') and target resource ('in a theme directory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'wordpress_list_files' or 'wordpress_list_plugin_files', which would require explicit differentiation to achieve a score of 5.

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 are obvious sibling tools like 'wordpress_list_files' (general file listing) and 'wordpress_list_plugin_files' (plugin-specific listing), but the description doesn't mention these or provide any context about when this theme-specific listing is appropriate versus other file listing options.

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