wordpress_theme_exists

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 this is a check operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like what 'installed' means (e.g., whether it includes active/inactive themes), authentication requirements, error handling, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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?

For a simple check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details about behavior, usage context, and return values. Given the complexity is low, it's adequate but with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 description doesn't mention the 'theme' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, with only one parameter and a straightforward name ('theme'), the baseline is adequate. The description doesn't add value beyond what's inferable from the parameter name, but the simplicity of the schema keeps it from being lower.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('if a theme is installed'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_themes' or 'wordpress_get_themes_detailed' which might provide similar theme information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With many sibling tools related to themes (e.g., 'wordpress_get_themes', 'wordpress_get_themes_detailed', 'wordpress_get_active_theme'), there's no indication of when this specific existence check is preferred over broader listing tools.

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