detect_theme_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the scope of analysis (token categories, naming, dark mode, coverage score) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavior is adequately described for a static analysis tool, but lacks depth on output format or potential mutations.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the main action and key details, the second clarifies scope. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers its purpose and scope. It lists what is analyzed, giving a good idea of expected output. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the output is a report or score, but the current level is nearly complete for a simple analysis 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 input schema has one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, where the schema description already explains its purpose ('Optional library ID to target a specific loaded library instead of the default'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Analyzes a component library for theming capabilities' and lists specific aspects: token categories, semantic naming patterns, dark mode readiness, and coverage score. It explicitly says 'Library-wide analysis, not per-component', distinguishing it from per-component sibling tools like 'check_dark_mode_patterns' or 'analyze_token_canonicality'.

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 usage for library-level theming analysis and explicitly warns against per-component use, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like 'analyze_accessibility' or 'analyze_token_canonicality'. It lacks exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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