LightCMS

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'with full data' indicating complete theme configuration is returned, not just metadata. However, missing disclosure of error behavior (e.g., returns 404 if version not found) or whether archived/unpinned versions are accessible.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. 'specific version' and 'full data' each earn their place by defining scope and completeness. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

Adequate for a simple read operation with one required parameter and readOnly annotations. 'Full data' hints at return value structure given no output schema is defined. However, lacks sibling differentiation and error condition documentation that would justify higher 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter 'version' documented as 'Version number,required'. Description neither adds semantic context (e.g., that version is an integer ID from get_theme_versions) nor repeats schema info. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema carries full descriptive burden.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'theme settings' and scope 'specific version' and 'full data'. Distinguishes from sibling get_theme_versions (list vs specific instance) and get_theme (current vs historical), though could be more explicit about the version-number lookup pattern.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus get_theme (current settings) or get_theme_versions (list available versions first). No mention that the version number must be obtained from get_theme_versions or that invalid versions will error.

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