List Company Themes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful scope information and general capabilities, but it does not disclose response shape, default limits, offset semantics, or how filters combine. These additions are modest relative to the annotation coverage.

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, front-loads the core scope, and avoids repeating the tool title. The second sentence earns its place by summarizing available capabilities without going into unnecessary detail.

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-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with fully described schema properties and safe annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could be more complete by noting the response format or default pagination behavior, but those gaps do not seriously block correct invocation.

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%, so per the baseline the description does not need to document every parameter. The description only restates that search, filtering, and pagination are supported without clarifying ambiguous fields like column, status, or order_by beyond the schema. It adds little semantic value over the structured definitions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List all WordPress themes across all sites in your Kinsta company.' This establishes scope and differentiates it from site-level theme tools like kinsta_themes_list and from plugin-focused sibling tools. The title reinforces the purpose without being the only source of meaning.

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 company-wide scope makes it clear this is the tool for aggregated theme listing across all sites, and the mention of search, filtering, and pagination indicates the standard query use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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