get_theme

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it reads from local cache, makes no API calls, and requires sync_project beforehand. Since no annotations are provided, this carries the transparency burden; it doesn't state what happens if data is absent (e.g., error vs empty result), but is otherwise strong.

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 a single, information-dense set of three sentences: purpose, behavior, prerequisite. No wasted words.

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, the description hints at return content (theme sections) and covers source, network behavior, and prerequisite. It lacks explicit error handling or return format details, but for a simple getter it's near-complete.

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 fully describes both parameters, including the 'section' enum and 'projectId'. The description echoes the categories but adds minimal value; the phrase 'widget defaults' clarifies that the 'widgets' enum means widget defaults, but overall the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resources (theme colors, typography, breakpoints, widget defaults), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_app_settings. It also specifies the data source ('local cache').

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 states a clear prerequisite ('Run sync_project first if not cached') and notes it makes no API calls, implying it's the lightweight cache read path. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but gives enough context for when to use it.

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