wordpress_list_themes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns themes with 'status and metadata,' giving basic behavioral context. However, it omits safety information (read-only vs destructive), pagination behavior, or rate limiting details expected for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with the action verb front-loaded. While the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds minor noise, the content is otherwise free of waste and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 list operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload ('status and metadata'). However, the complete absence of parameter documentation and lack of annotations leaves gaps that prevent a higher score.

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 0% description coverage for both parameters ('site' and 'status'). The description fails to compensate by explaining what values are valid for 'site' (URL, ID, slug?) or what filter options exist for 'status' (active, inactive, all?), leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 'List installed WordPress themes' and specifies it 'Returns all themes with their status and metadata.' The phrase 'all themes' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool wordpress_get_active_theme (singular), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from wordpress_wp_theme_list_detailed.

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 like wordpress_get_active_theme or wordpress_wp_theme_list_detailed. It lacks explicit when-to-use criteria or prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements).

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