Resolve an installed theme directory

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 says 'Resolve and verify' but doesn't explain what happens if the theme is not found, whether it is read-only, or what the return value is. There is no mention of side effects, errors, or output format. The description is too sparse to reliably inform an agent of expected behavior.

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 with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the constraint is stated directly. Every word earns its place, making it easily parseable by an agent.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a path string), error behavior, or how it relates to other theme tools. Given that it resolves a directory, an agent needs to know the return format and failure modes to use it correctly. The description falls short of that.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'Slugs only', which aligns with the schema's pattern but doesn't add meaning beyond the pattern. It doesn't clarify what the 'name' parameter represents beyond being a slug, nor does it explain any edge cases (e.g., invalid slugs). The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Resolve and verify' and the resource 'local installed theme directory'. It also adds a critical constraint: 'Slugs only; no URLs, installation, or downloads.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like theme_list (lists themes) and theme_set (changes theme). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides clear input constraints ('Slugs only; no URLs, installation, or downloads') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say 'use this to get the directory path for a theme slug' or contrast it with theme_list. The constraints imply usage but fall short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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