Get a theme

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about block-theme consequences, but it does not disclose error behavior for unknown stylesheets, exact return fields, or installed-theme prerequisites. This is a minor gap for a low-risk read tool.

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 sentence front-loads the resource and purpose, then adds two informative specifics. The parenthetical about block themes is decision-relevant rather than padding, so every part earns its place.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description tells an agent what kind of information to expect and why it matters. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the exact returned fields or behavior for an unrecognized theme, leaving a small completeness gap.

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% description coverage: stylesheet includes a real example ('twentytwentyfour') and site_id explains optionality, defaults, and list_sites fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('one installed theme'), then names two concrete detail categories: what the theme declares support for and whether it is a block theme. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_themes, activate_theme, and get_theme_mods.

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?

It clearly scopes the tool to a single installed theme and explains why the block-theme distinction matters for page/template building, which implies when an agent would want this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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