Read a theme file

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 context about the consequences of the sibling tools (file replacement and exact-match requirement), which is not in the annotations and helps the agent understand the implicit workflow. This adds value beyond the structured data.

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, zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow guidance is concise yet complete. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding. Excellent structure.

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 read-only file access tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and why it's necessary before editing. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the tool returns raw file contents; no additional structure is needed. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters (path, theme, site_id, max_chars) are already documented in the input schema. The description itself does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema is fully descriptive, a score of 3 is appropriate as the baseline.

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 verb ('Read') and the resource ('the contents of one theme file'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming write_theme_file and edit_theme_file. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from alternatives without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Always read before editing' and explains the reasoning for both write_theme_file (replaces whole file) and edit_theme_file (needs exact text to match). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus its siblings, and the rationale is concrete and actionable.

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