get_theme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the description is straightforward. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the name itself, such as what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether unpublished themes are returned, or any rate limits. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, short sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for the operation it describes, conveying the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a simple get-by-ID tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose sufficiently. It could mention what is returned or error behavior, but the simplicity and clarity of the operation make the description nearly complete. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear description and example. The tool description simply repeats 'by ID' without adding any additional meaning or format specifics. Since the schema already handles the parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 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 'Fetch a specific theme by ID' uses a specific verb (fetch), clearly identifies the resource (theme), and specifies the scope (by ID). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_themes (plural, likely listing all) and get_theme_files (which fetches files, not the theme object itself).

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 clearly implies the use case: call this when you have a specific theme ID and need that exact theme. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'by ID' phrase and existence of get_themes make the context clear. Lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.

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