Get LimeSurvey theme publication instructions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the output is version-aware (depends on installed version) and community publication is only included as an optional branch. It also discloses the key derived value (installed_theme_name) the caller will receive.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and the enumerated content covered. The trailing installed_theme_name clause is somewhat tacked on, but no sentence is wasted. Slightly heavy enumeration keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a 5-parameter tool the description adequately conveys scope and version-dependence, with the only gap being the lack of routing guidance against sibling theme tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, so the schema does most of the heavy lifting. The description adds meaning for a few params: 'version-aware' maps to installed_limesurvey_version, 'optional community-publication' maps to publication_scope, and the installed_theme_name clause relates to theme_name. It explains nothing about hosting or package_file_name, so it remains a baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a well-defined resource: version-aware installation, preview, assignment, accessibility, rollback, and publication steps for a survey theme. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_survey_theme, validate_survey_theme, and assign_survey_theme, which perform actions rather than return guidance. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 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 never states when to call this tool versus the sibling theme tools (generate/validate/assign/list_installed_themes) or any prerequisites. A 'publication guide' implies a prep/documentation use case, but the agent must infer it. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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