Hole Theme.json Konfiguration

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It specifies the tool returns the complete configuration with named design areas, but does not disclose return format, error conditions, or whether it is read-only (though the verb implies it). This adds some context but leaves the agent unaware of potential edge cases like non-block themes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and main content categories. However, it lacks notes on return format or behavior when theme.json is absent or the theme is classic, which could leave the agent unsure about error handling. Since output schema is absent, a bit more detail might help, but the tool is simple enough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (not needed) but clarifies the tool's output scope, which is sufficient.

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 fetches the complete theme.json configuration and enumerates key contents (colors, typography, spacing, layout), making it distinct from sibling tools like design_get_typography or design_get_color_palette that target specific subsets. The verb 'Holt' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 use when the full theme.json is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with more specific sibling tools or state when to prefer them. No prerequisites or context are provided, so the agent must infer the use case from the tool name and title.

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