Get Shopify Theme Guide

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the guides link to Shopify's primary documentation for version-sensitive details, responses can be truncated to fit maxTokens, and no separate agent skill is required. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then gives usage context and a clear numbered set of invocation patterns. It is appropriately sized for a knowledge-retrieval tool with multiple parameters, and the numbered options make the guidance easy to scan without wasting sentences.

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 that this is a read-only guide retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it explains what content the guides cover, how to request known topics, aliases, search queries, or the full index, and how to limit response size. It also handles the common discovery case when the topic name is unknown.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful routing semantics: known topic, topic alias, natural-language query when the topic is unknown, empty call for the full index, and a recommended maxTokens range, which helps an agent choose parameter values rather than merely restating 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 states a specific verb and resource: loading Better Design's Shopify Liquid and Online Store 2.0 implementation guidance from the MCP. It clearly scopes the domain as Shopify theme development, which distinguishes it from sibling guide tools such as get-widget-guide and get-react-native-guide without needing to name them.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: before creating or changing Liquid, JSON templates, sections, blocks, snippets, locale files, theme assets, product forms, cart behavior, or Shopify CLI workflows. It also explains within-tool routing, such as preferring query search when the topic name is unknown and using an empty call to get the topic index, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling guide tools or state when not to use it.

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