coss_theme

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes what the tool returns (design tokens, font conventions, @theme block, etc.). Does not mention side effects, but as a 'get' tool it is likely read-only. Provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand its behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then usage tips. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description details the content returned (design tokens, font conventions, setup commands, @theme block). Covers both format options. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with enum description. Description adds value by explaining the effect of the 'full' format ('complete styling guide'), which goes beyond the schema's generic description. Helps agent choose parameter value correctly.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves design tokens, font conventions, setup commands, and specifically shadcn-style CSS variables. Distinguishes from sibling tools like coss_get_component and coss_get_doc by focusing on theme/styling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('setting up a project or rebranding the look') and provides guidance on the format parameter ('Pass format:'full' for the complete styling guide'). No explicit alternatives but siblings are distinct, so context is clear.

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