List installed WordPress themes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining what the response will include: theme status, available updates, and known vulnerabilities. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and outputs, and the second gives the single key usage detail. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with two parameters and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool returns and how to source the main identifier. The only minor gap is the unexplained 'username' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for the 'software' parameter by specifying it is the WordPress installation identifier and showing how to retrieve it. However, the 'username' parameter remains only described as 'username parameter' in the schema and is not clarified in the description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List themes installed on a WordPress installation', and usefully enumerates what the listing includes (status, available updates, known vulnerabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_listWordPressThemesV1, which likely covers available or marketplace themes.

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 context for when to use the tool: when listing installed themes on a specific WordPress installation. It also explains how to obtain the required software identifier from the installations endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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