get_themes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists themes without requiring parameters, implying a safe, read-only operation. It also hints at the relationship with generate_presentation. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or what 'themes' entail.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that pack essential information with no wasted words. Front-loads the main action and immediately provides why the agent would use it.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does (list themes) and when to use it (before generate_presentation). A 5 would require mentioning return format, any error conditions, or authentication scope.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given no parameters exist. 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 verb 'List themes' and the resource 'themes available to the authenticated account'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to call this tool (before generate_presentation) and that it provides valid theme_id values, which is essential context.

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 explicitly advises to call this tool before generate_presentation to obtain valid theme_id values. This provides clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention any alternatives, which would have earned a 5.

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