wordpress_theme_exists

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without revealing the return format (e.g., boolean), whether the check is by slug or name, or any error behavior. The verb 'check' implies non-mutating but does not explicitly guarantee safety or side-effect-free execution.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's simple shape, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should explain return semantics, but it doesn't state what the check returns (e.g., true/false). The single parameter's format is also unspecified. The description is too thin to be considered complete.

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, and the sole parameter 'theme' is not described in the tool description. The description does not clarify the expected format (slug, directory name, or display name), leaving the agent to guess what value to provide.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' and resource 'theme', clearly indicating an existence check. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wordpress_get_themes (listing themes) and wordpress_activate_theme (activating a theme).

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. It does not explain differences from wordpress_get_themes or wordpress_get_themes_detailed, nor does it mention any preconditions or scenarios where this existence check is appropriate.

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