list_themes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of special theme values but does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether any authentication is needed, or what the response structure looks like. The agent cannot know side effects or return format from the description alone.

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 short sentences, no filler. The purpose is stated first, and the special value semantics follow in a compact way. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the exact return shape unspecified. It mentions themes and representative colors, and the special value syntax, but an agent cannot know whether the response is an array of objects with id/color fields or something else without actually calling it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input parameters and instead adds meaning about the values it returns (the theme id formats and their visual meaning), which is useful when passing the id to render_document.

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 states the tool exposes available themes and their representative colors, and connects it to render_document's theme parameter. It is differentiated from sibling rendering/publishing tools by its role as a lookup resource. A more explicit verb like 'lists' would make it 5, but the title already conveys that.

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 it by saying the id should be placed into render_document's theme parameter. It also documents special value formats ('mono', 'one:#HEX', 'one:t3'), which guides the agent in choosing a theme. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though this is a simple list operation.

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