wordpress_read_theme_file

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 'Read' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, file size limits, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage context, and expected output, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without guesswork.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal value by implying 'theme' and 'filePath' are needed, but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., theme name, file path format), their constraints, or examples, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'a specific file from a theme', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_read_file' or 'wordpress_read_plugin_file', which also read files but from different sources, so it's not fully specific about its unique scope.

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., theme must exist), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'wordpress_list_theme_files' for listing files or 'wordpress_read_file' for general file reading, leaving usage context unclear.

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