legal_get_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by disclosing the shape of the returned theme data, but it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor whether the site must have a theme configured or what happens if none exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, and the return contents follow immediately. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, naming the three components of the theme payload. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool; only the empty/unset-theme behavior and read-only nature are unstated.

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% — the single 'site' parameter is documented in-schema with the 'see list_sites' pointer. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (banner theme) and enumerates the return payload — preset name, CSS custom-property overrides, rendered CSS — which is more than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent wp_get_theme (WordPress theme) or legal_put_theme siblings, which is a real disambiguation risk in this namespace.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is the read counterpart to legal_put_theme, and no note about when to prefer it over wp_get_theme. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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