list_themes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('List'), explains the active brand behavior, and describes the effects of the detail parameter. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but for a simple list tool this is reasonable.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the detail options efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the active brand scope, and return content variations. It could be more explicit about the response format or pagination, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description's explanation of detail levels adds a simplified overview but largely repeats what the schema already states, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured definition.

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 it lists all content themes for the active brand with their IDs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edit_theme, delete_theme, and generate_themes by focusing on listing.

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 implies when to use the tool (for listing themes) and explains the detail parameter, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases when this tool should not be used. No exclusions are provided, making the guidance adequate but not thorough.

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