Get Customizer settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds contextual value by enumerating what theme mods typically contain (logo, colors, layout) and noting the classic theme relationship. While it doesn't describe return format or edge cases, the annotations lower the burden, and the description adds meaningful color beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and resource; the second adds relevant context about classic themes. Every word contributes value.

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 read-only operation with one optional parameter and no required output schema, the description is adequate. It states what is returned (theme mods) and gives examples. It could mention possible absence of mods or return structure, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward read tool.

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 only parameter (site_id) is fully described in the schema with its optionality and default behavior. The description adds no supplementary semantics about the parameter. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to restate what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the active theme's Customizer settings (theme mods)'. It lists concrete examples (logo, colors, layout options) and clarifies the scope ('anything else the theme registers there'). It also distinguishes from 'options', so an agent can tell this apart from other settings retrievers without needing to inspect siblings.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it explains that classic themes keep configuration in theme mods rather than options, implying this tool is appropriate for classic theme settings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_global_styles or get_site_settings, nor state when not to use this tool. The 'rather than in options' hint is useful but falls short of direct comparison with sibling tools.

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